KflliillP 


HI 


rVt\V 


0<  V»  ®b*»%Wtl  g 


9 


!>'k 


;% 


PRINCETON,     N.     J 


iedeniea  m 


Shelf.. 


J 


BX  9190  .M663  1887 
Monfort,  Elias  Riggs,  1842' 

1920. 
Elder-moderatorship 


REQUEST  TO  PUBLISH. 


Capt.  E.  R.  Monfort  : 

Dear  Sir — The  undersigned  believe  that  the  adoption  of  the  Elder-Moderator 
Overture  would  be  highly  injurious  to  our  Church  especially  with  the  impli- 
cations assumed  by  those  who  champion  it.  If  we  are  to  obliterate  the  dis- 
tinction between  ministers  and  elders,  then  it  ought  to  be  done  by  a  consistent 
revision  of  the  whole  book.  In  any  event,  it  will  greatly  help  all  parties  to 
read  both  sides.  We  are,  therefore,  earnestly  in  favor  of  the  full  publication 
and  widest  circulation  of  the  discussion.  It  will  go  far  to  prevent  any  tend- 
ency among  our  people  to  either  prelacy  or  independency.  We  highly  com- 
mend the  thoroughness  and  fairness  of  your  management  of  the  discussion. 


MINISTERS. 

George  P.  Hays,  D.D.,  .  Cincinnati,  O. 
G.  C.  Heckman,  D.D.,  .  Cincinnati,  O. 

B.  W.  Chidlaw,  D.D.,  .  Cincinnati,  O. 
G.  M.  Maxwell,  D.D.,  .  Cincinnati,  O. 
W.  C.  Young,  D.D.,  .  Louisville,  Ky. 
E.  P.  Humphrey, D.D.,LL.D.,Lou'ville,Ky. 


W.  W.  Colmery,  D.D., 
John  Robinson,  D.D.,     . 
S.  J.  Niccolls,  D.D., 
R.  C.  Galbraith,  D.D.,    . 
Pres.  D.  W.  Fisher,  D.D., 
I.  N.  Hays,  D.D., 
J.  P.  E.  Kumler,  D.D., 
Prof.  S.  Yerkes,  D.D.,   . 
J.  P.  Scott,  D.D., 
Pres.  E.  L.  Hurd,  D.D., 
A.  D.  Hawn,  D.D.,    . 
J.  I.  Brownson,  D.D., 
T.  M.  Hopkins,  D.D.,    . 
Prof.  J.  B.  Garritt,  Ph.D., 


Oxford,  O. 

Cleveland,  O. 

.    St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Chillicothe,  O. 

Hanover,  Ind. 

Allegheny,  Pa. 

.     Pittsburg,  Pa. 

Danville,  Ky. 

Lebanon,  O. 

Carlinville,  111. 

Delaware,  O. 

Washington,  Pa. 

Denver,  Col. 

Hanover,  Ind. 


T.  V.  Milligan,  D.D.,      East  Liverpool,  O. 

C.  C.  Hart,      ....       Logan,  O. 

D.  A.  Cunningham,  D.D.,  Wheeling,  W.  Va. 


Scranton,  Pa. 

Madison,  Ind. 

San  Francisco,  Cal. 

.    Springfield,  O. 

Hillsboro,  O. 


S.  C.  Logan,  D  D., 
W.  R.  Brown,  D.D., 

F.  E.  Shearer,  D.D., 

G.  H.  Fullerton,  D.D., 
W.  J.  McSurely,  D.D., 

Robert  Alexander,  D.D.,  St.  Clairsville,  O. 
B.  C.  Swan,         .         .  Harrisburg,  111. 

A.  C.  Dickerson,  D.D.,  Bowling  Green,  Ky. 
M.  C.  Williams,  D.D.,  .  Princeton,  111. 
N.  S.  Smith,  D.D.,  .  .  Columbus,  O. 
W.  H.  James,  .  .  Springdale,  O. 
J.  Edwards,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Plymouth,  Pa. 
J.  W.  Knott,  .         .    Sweetland,  Iowa. 

H.  J.  Steward,  Ph.D.,  .  Newport,  Ky. 
J.  M.  Hutchison,  D.D.,  Jeffersonville,  Ind. 
George  Hill,  D.D.,     .  Blairsville,  Pa. 

J.  J.  Francis,  .         .         Cincinnati,  O. 

L.  D.  Potter,  D.D.,  .  .  Glendale,  <). 
.1.  P.  Hendrick,  D.D.,  Flemingsburg,  Ky. 
N.  G.  Parke,  D.D.,  .         Pittston,  Pa. 

Robert  Dickson,  D.D.,  .  .  Clifton,  O. 
A.  Ritchie,  Ph.D.,  .  .  Cincinnati,  (). 
A.  Donaldson,  D.D.,  Eldersridge,  Pa. 

H.  II.  Allen,  D.D.,  .  .  Princeton,  Ky. 
Chas.  Hutchinson,  D.D.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 
Elliot  E.  Swift,  D.D.,  '  Allegheny,  Pa. 
R.  H.  Leonard,       .  .         Cincinnati,  O. 


RULING   ELDERS. 


William  McAlpin, 
Alexander  McDonald, 
E.  E.  White,  LL.D., 
G.  B.  Hollister, 
J.  G.  Hackney, 
W.  Harvey  Anderson, 
D.  S.  Johnston, 
Peter  Rudolph  Neff, 
J.  M.  Hargrave, 
Cyrus  McGlashan, 
H.  V.  Loving,    . 
James  B.  King, 
Reuben  Tvler,     . 
Dr.  J.  W."  Scott,      . 
R.  C.  Swartz, 
James  Lowes, 
Dr.  J.  C.  Culbertson, 
Prof.  T.  B.  Elder, 
G.  W.  McAlpin, 
Samuel  Woodside, 
Moses  McClure, 
Prof.  II .  II.  Young, 
II.  H.  Finch,      • 
S.  J.  Broad  well, 
Wm    Harvey, 
William  Ernst, 
D.  J.  Curry, 
Ezekiel  Hughes, 
Theodore  Fagin, 
A.  Byerlv, 

H.  W.  Fulton,  M.D., 
D.  J.  Fallis, 
John  Surran, 
Samuel  Pogue,    . 
A.  Springett, 
John  Chidlaw,    . 
H.  G.  O.  Cary, 
Pres.  O.  Beatty,  LL.D 
Robert  Hunter, 
J.  M.  Johnson, 
John  II   Jouvet, 
John  A.  Simpson, 
Miles  Johnston, 
C.  A.  Sanders, 
R.  J.  Milligan,   . 
David  Lytle, 
J.  F.  Blair,  M.D., 
Hugh  Gibson, 
Col.  John  Kennett, 
Daniel  Potter, 


Cincinnati,  O. 

.    Cincinnati,  O. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

.    Cincinnati,  O. 

Louisville   Ky. 

Avondale,  O. 

Cincinnati.  O. 

.    Cincinnati.  O. 

Richmond,  Kan. 

Stockport,  O. 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

.     Wyoming,  O. 

Lexington,  Ky. 

Martin's  Ferry,  O. 

Hartwefl,  O. 

.    Cincinnati,  O. 

Eldersridge,  Pa. 

.    Cincinnati,  O. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Dry  Ridge,  Ky. 

Hanover,  Ind. 

.    Cincinnati,  O. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

.    Cincinnati,  O. 

Covington,  Ky. 

Harrodsburgh,  Ky. 

Cleves,  O. 

Newport,  Ky. 

.  Cincinnati,  O. 

Pittsburg,  Pa. 

Covington,  Ky. 

Newport,  Ky. 

Cincinnati,  < ). 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Cleves,  O. 

Zanesville,  O. 

Danville,  Ky. 

Cincinnati,  O 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Avondale,  (). 

Covington,  Ky. 

Cincinnati,  I  >. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Linwood,  O 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Linwood,  O. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Cincinnati,  O. 

Steubenville,  O. 


ELDER-MODERATORSIIIP: 


A 


DISCUSSION 


Elder-Moderator  Overtures, 


<E.  R.  MONFORT,  LL.D., 

Editor  of  the  "  Herald  and  Presbyter,"  Cincinnati,  O., 


W.  C.  GRAY,  Ph.D., 

Editor  of  the  "Interior,"  Chicago,  M. 


Originally  Published  in  the  "Herald  and  Presbyter"  and  the  "Interior." 


Published  at  the  Office  of  the 

"HERALD    A1STD    PRESBYTER," 

178  Elm  Street,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

1887. 


EXPLANATORY. 


This  discussion  grew  out  of  declarations  of  Dr.  Gray  in  answer  to  articles  by 
Rev.  Drs.  Patterson  and  Kitchie,  as  well  as  the  editors  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter, 
defying  us  to  meet  him  in  the  discussion  of  the  Elder-Moderator  Overtures  on  Scrip- 
ture ground.  After  six  articles  had  been  published,  it  was  agreed  that  the  proposi- 
tions to  be  discussed  should  be  : 

I.  Ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  scriptural  order,  though  they 
have  some  functions  in  common. 

II.  It  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  overtures  now  before  the  Church  concerning 
the  eligibility  of  ruling  elders  to  the  moderatorship. 

I  agreed  to  discuss  the  scriptural  questions  involved,  although  the  Assembly,  in 
submitting  the  overtures,  did  not  intend  any  investigation  or  change  of  the  Bible 
basis  of  our  church  polity.  In  defending  our  system,  I  have  tried  to  show  that 
Jesus  Christ,  the  antitype  of  prophets,  priests  and  kings  of  the  Jewish  Church, 
became,  when  on  earth,  the  visible  Head  of  the  Church,  claiming  all  power  in 
heaven  and  on  earth;  appointed  his  apostles,  the  first  presbytery,  to  be  his  repre- 
sentatives and  witnesses,  and  sent  them  to  preach  and  dispense  the  sacraments  and 
ordination;  they  first  chose  a  successor  to  Judas,  "to  take  part  with  them  in  this 
ministry  and  apostleship,"  and  then  began  to  preach  and  dispense  boly  ordinances; 
that  they  soon  ordained  Paul  as  an  "apostle  and  a  preacher,"  and  with  him,  Bar- 
nabas as  a  minister;  that  Timothy,  Titus,  and  others,  were  ordained  ministers  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery;  that  ministers  were  preachers  and 
rulers  in  unity  of  office,  exercising  rulership  in  the  churches  where  they  were 
pastors,  and  general  rulership  over  all  the  churches,  in  virtue  of  their  presbyterial 
ordination,  authority  and  membership;  that  they  and  the  churches  they  planted 
were  the  visible  Church — superseding  the  Jewish  economy  and  administration, 
which  ceased  to  have  any  authority,  as  a  visible  organization  and  government  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  became  the  enemy  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  as  it  is  to  this 
day;  that  the  apostles,  and  the  ministers  they  ordained,  appointed  elders  in  every 
church,  most  probably  the  choice  of  the  people,  as  in  the  election  of  the  first 
deacons;  that  the  parochial  elders  were  only  rulers,  in  conjunction  with  these 
preaching  elders  or  ministers,  in  churches  where  there  were  pastors  ;  that  the  func- 
tions and  duties  of  ministers  and  parochial  elders  were  different — that  the  latter 
were  rulers  only,  and  that  the  office  of  the  former,  is  rulership  and  preaching  in 
unity;  that  ruling  elders  are  representatives  of  the  people  in  the  church  at  home 
and  as  delegates  to  higher  courts;  that  the  duties  of  a  moderator  require  the  exer- 
cise of  ministerial  functions,  and,  though  a  ruling  elder  could  preside  over  some 
proceedings,  it  would  lead  to  debate  and  confusion  in  deciding  what  he  could  do  or 
could  not  do  as  moderator;  that  the  overture,  if  adopted,  would  make  our  system 
a  confusion  and  a  contradiction,  and  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  it.  This  is  the 
line  of  argument  that  I  have  pursued  in  the  discussion.  I  ask  the  reader  carefully 
to  note  that  all  Dr.  Gray's  quotations  of  authorities,  save  one,  have  reference  to  the 
parity  of  the  ministry  as  against  prelacy,  and  no  reference  to  the  parity  of  ministers 
and  ruling  elders. 

I  am  glad  to  print  on  the  last  page  of  the  cover  of  this  pamphlet  the  call  for  its 
publication,  hoping  for  a  more  careful  reading  thereby.  Dr.  Gray,  before  the 
debate,  proposed  to  join  me  in  the  publication  of  the  discussion,  but  declined  when 
it  was  ended.  Instead  of  assisting  in  the  publication  and  circulation  of  the  whole 
discussion,  he  has  published  a  treatise  of  his  own,  and  I  am  left  to  do  the  work 
alone.  I  ask  all  to  read  and  circulate  the  pamphlet — especially  among  ruling 
elders.  E.  R.  Monfort. 


ELDER-MODERATOR  DISCUSSION. 


I. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  November  3,  1886. 

THE  ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 
The  Interior  takes  the  ground  that  there  is  no  real  difference  between  the  Old 
Testament  and  New  Testament  elders;  that  ruling  elders  have  scriptural  authority 
for  administering  the  sacraments  of  the  Church ;  that  ruling  elders  are  eligible 
under  our  present  Form  of  Government  to  the  position  of  moderator  in  our  church 
courts;  that  the  overtures  before  the  Church  are  only  a  formal  expression  of  what 
ruling  elders  are  entitled  to  enjoy  under  our  present  Form  of  Government;  that 
those  who  oppose  these  views  are  seeking  to  degrade  the  eldership,  and  that  we  in 
Cincinnati  are  either  ignorant  of,  or  afraid  to  discuss,  the  scriptural  and  constitu- 
tional questions  involved ;  and  further,  that  ministers  should  not  and  can  not  dis- 
cuss the  question  from  the  standpoint  of  a  ruling  elder.  From  these  propositions 
we  respectfully  dissent.  We  believe  that  there  is  scriptural  authority  for  both 
preaching  and  ruling  elders;  that  their  authority  and  functions  are  not  the  same, 
although  having  some  functions  in  common,  and  that  the  discussion  of  the  true 
status  of  both  and  their  relations  to  each  other  and  the  Church  may  be  fully  and 
frankly  carried  on  without  subjecting  us  to  the  unjust  criticism  of  attempting  to 
degrade  the  office  of  ruling  elder.  Now,  therefore,  the  writer,  being  a  ruling  elder, 
has  made  a  proposition  for  a  public  discussion,  which  has  been  sent  to  Dr.  Gray. 


A  PROPOSITION. 

Jh.  W.  C.  Gray,  Editor  of  the  Interior : — 

You  are  a  ruling  elder  and  so  am  I.  You  are  the  editor  of  a  Presbyterian  paper 
and  so  am  I.  You  object  to  ministers  speaking  for  the  elders,  because  they  "do 
not  look  at  the  matter  from  our  standpoint."  My  standpoint  and  yours  tire  the 
same,  and  hence  my  right  to  speak  you  will  not  question.  You  and  I  hold  differ- 
ent views,  and  therefore  I  propose  that  we  discuss  the  question,  for  six  weeks 
or  more,  whether  ruling  elders  should  be  made  moderators,  and  publish  the  debate 
in  the  Interior  and  the  Herald  and  Presbyter.  I  believe  the  readers  of  both 
papers  would  enjoy  such  a  discussion,  if  free  from  discourtesy  and  invidious  per- 
sonalities, and  confined  to  the  questions  at  issue.  If  you  are  agreed,  I  will  under- 
take to  establish  the  following  propositions  : 

1.  Ruling  elders,  according  to  our  Form  of  Government,  are  not  eligible  to  the 
office  of  moderator  in  our  church  courts,  except  in  church  sessions  where  there  is 
no  minister,  and  where  it  is  impracticable,  without  great  inconvenience,  to  procure 
the  attendance  of  a  minister. 

2.  Ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  order,  although  they  have 
some  functions  in  common. 

3.  It  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  overtures  before  the  Church,  making  ruling 
elders  eligible  as  moderators. 

I  will  write  and  publish  the  first  article,  and  the  next  week  you  can  print  it  in 
your  paper  with  your  reply,  and  the  next  week  I  will  insert  your  article  with  my 
second,  and  so  on  to  the  end.  You  have  noticed  that  the  majority  of  presbyteries 
have  postponed  action  on  the  overtures  until  the  spring  meetings.  It  is  a  good 
time  to  discuss  the  question.  You  think  that  we  here  in  Cincinnati  are  afraid  of 
this  question.  I  will  be  able,  as  I  suppose,  to  show  that  I  am  willing,  frankly  and 
fully,  to  discuss  every  point  in  the  light  both  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Constitution 
of  our  Church.     Respectfully,  E.  R.  Monfobt. 


[4] 
II. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  November  io,  1886. 

ELDER-.M<  >DERATOK  QUESTION. 

DR.  GRAY'S  ANSWER. 

Dr.  E.  B.  Mcmfort,  of  the  Ilerald  and  Presbyter : — 

Dear  Brother: — Pardon  me  for  employing  a  sanguinary  illustration  when  I  say 
that,  while  1  am  not  familiar  with  the  "code,"  I  remember  in  a  general  way  that 
the  challenging  party  did  not  include,  in  his  cartel,  requirements  in  regard  to  the- 
locality  and  topography  of  the  ground,  the  positions  of  the  combatants  and  the 
character  of  the  weapons.  It  would  not  have  been  considered  modest.  But  as- 
there  are  to  be  no  "invidious  personalities"  between  us,  I  will  not  impugn  your 
native  coyness,  but  beg  leave  to  suggest  that  your  program  is  not  conducive  to  profit- 
able debate. 

I.  Your  (irst  proposition  is  stated  negatively — that  ruling  elders  are  not  now  eli- 
gible to  the  moderatorship;  and  you  ask  me  to  insist  that  they  are  already  eligible. 
But  by  advocating  an  amendment  to  the  law  I  tacitly  admit  that  the  amendment  is- 
necessary.  You,  therefore,  ask  me  to  assist  you  against  myself.  I  think  it  quite 
probable  that  you  and  I  together  could  get  me  down.  But  with  so  many  preachers, 
in  your  vicinity  who  seem  anxious  to  speak  for  the  elders,  while  they  speak  against 
them,  you  can  afford  to  excuse  me. 

II.  The  real  issue  before  the  Church  coxdd  be  debated  upon  your  second  propo- 
sition, if  botli  disputants  chose  to  do  so;  but  the  terms  of  the  proposition  do  not 
compel  it.  The  Scripture  saith:  "Him  who  is  weak  in  faith  receive  ye,  but  not  to 
doubt/id  disputations."  You  are  weak  in  the  faith  concerning  the  eldership,  Bro. 
Monfort,  and  I  desire  to  feed  you  on  the  milk  of  the  word. 

III.  Your  third  proposition  again  brings  up  the  question  of  the  present  eligibility 
of  elders.  You  must  have  some  sort  of  a  dead-fall  rigged  up  for  me,  with  that  ques- 
tion for  the  bait.  I  will  take  it  by  saying  that  I  believe  they  are  now  eligible — so 
now  pull  your  string  and  let  us  see  what  comes  of  it. 

IV.  You  state  affirmative  propositions  negatively  so  as  to  take  to  your  side  the 
advantage  of  the  affirmative.  Very  well,  I  will  concede  this  or  any  other  advan- 
tage to  you,  short  of  abandoning  the  real  question  at  issue. 

Having  disposed  of  your  by-play,  Bro.  Elias,  let  us  now  come  down  to  business. 

The  question  is  a  question  of  amending  a  subordinate  standard  to  make  it  more  fully  con- 
form to  the  supreme  standard.  The  only  authority  in  such  a  case  is  that  supreme 
standard — the  Holy  Scriptures.  Our  Confession  of  Faith  positively  excludes  all 
human  authority,  including  itself,  from  any  voice  in  such  decisions.  This  is  the 
bed-rock  of  evangelical  Christianity,  and  on  that  rock,  and  nowhere  else,  can  the 
truth  in  this  controversy  be  established. 

For  this  reason,  in  answer  to  your  challenge  for  a  debate,  I  offer  to  discuss  the 
following  questions  with  you: 

I.  Is  the  office  of  the  elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  office  instituted  by 
divine  authority,  and  by  that  name  designated  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments? 

II.  Do  the  Scriptures  make  a  distinction  between  the  elder  who  labors  in  word 
and  doctrine,  and  the  elder  who  rules,  such  as  to  give  official  superiority  in  ruler- 
ship  to  the  elder  who  teaches? 

III.  Is  it  expedient  to  adopt  an  overture  which  shall  clearly  define  the  eligibility 
of  the  ruling  elder  to  the  moderatorship  of  the  higher  courts  in  our  branch  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church? 

The  above  questions  bring  out  the  two  scriptural  considerations  of  lawfulness- 
and  expediency.  You  may  consider  them  as  put  negatively,  if  you  choose,  and  lead 
oii'  accordingly. 

I  suggest  that  each  article  be  limited  to  one  column — making  two,  one  on  each 
side,  in  one  paper. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to  be  able  to  say  what  we  have  to  say  in  less  than 
six  weeks.  If  we  are  going  to  be  that  long-winded,  let  us  keep  mum  about  it  at  the 
start,  and  break  it  to  our  afflicted  subscribers  gradually.  I  am,  dear  Bro.  Monfort, 
affectionately  yours,  Wm.  C.  Gray. 


[  5] 

III. 

"  Herald  and  Presbyter,"  November  10,  1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Ifr.    W.   C.   Gray,  Editor  of  the  Interior:— 

Dear  Brother: — Your  illustration  taken  from  the  dueling  code  is  not  pertinent, 
for  the  reason  that  the  only  weapons  and  place  possible  to  us  are  our  editorial  pens 
and  the  columns  of  our  papers.  You  claim  the  right,  moreover,  to  name  the  cause 
of  controversy.  In  other  words,  you  are  ready  to  meet  me  at  the  place,  and  with 
the  weapons  proposed,  if  we  can  find  another  basis  of  disagreement. 

My  propositions  were  framed  in  view  of  the  public  utterances  of  the  Interior  from 
time  t  >  time.  They  set  forth  the  grounds  of  difference  between  us,  while  your  new 
-itions  clearly  avoid  some  points  of  difference  which  I  deem  vital  to  the  dis- 
cussion Moreover,  it  is  not  accurate  to  say  that  I  am  the  challenger.  I  have  taken 
up  the  gauntlet  that  you  have  several  times  thrown  down.  I  have  simply  accepted 
your  challenge,  and  upon  questions  which  you  proposed.  You  said  in  the  Interior 
of  October  14th,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Patterson  : 

Tell  us  whether  the  Presbyterian  elder  is  a  true  scriptural  elder.  Tackle  that  question, 
Doctor;  it  is  not  worth  while  lor  us  to  challenge  the  weathercocks  on  the  Cincinnati  vanes,  or 
the  choppers  of  sausage  logic  below,  to  answer  that  question.  Some  of  them  don't  know,  and 
those  who  do  know  are  afraid. 

Then  again  in  the  same  paper  you  say  : 

The  arguments  of  Drs.  Hays,  Ritchie  and  the  Monforts  make  no  pretense  to  be  founded  on 
Scripture,  and  w;  make  bold  to  say  that  those  gentlemen,  and  others  who  hold  with  them,  dare 
not  place  the  discussion  on  that  high  ground.  Anything  less  than  such  a  discussion  of  a  scrip- 
tural question  is  mere  petty  twaddle. 

This  is  certainly  a  challenge,  and  was  so  understood  by  your  readers,  as  well  as 
hy  myself. 

"  My  first  proposition,  that  ruling  elders  are  not  eligible  under  our  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment to  the  moderatorship,  except  in  the  church  session  when  an  emergency  ex- 
ists, was  based  upon  your  frequent  assertion  that  they  are  eligible.  This  you  say  in 
your  article,  have  frequently  said,  and  repeat  in  your  reply  to  Dr.  Ritchie  in  the  St. 
Douis  Evangelist  of  October  21,  viz.: 

If  the  Presbyterian  elder  is  a  true  scriptural  elder,  then  he  is  officially  competent  to  perform 
any  duty  to  which  the  Presbytery,  Synod  or  Assembly  shall  call  or  appoint  him.  If  he  is  a  ruler 
in  God's  house,  he  is  competent  to  rule  as  mederator.  We  do  not  believe  that  our  "  Book"  is 
.against  this  view,  or  that  any  amendment  is  necessary,  though  we  favor  the  overtures  to  remove 
any  doubt. 

My  second  proposition  was  based  upon  your  frequent  assertion  that  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  teaching  and  ruling  elder;  that  ruling  elders  have  the  scrip- 
tural authority  for  performing  all  the  functions  of  the  teaching  elder,  including  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments.     In  the  Interior  of  October  21  you  said  : 

It  would  be  scriDturally  lawful  for  us  [ruling  elders]  to  exercise  any  ministerial  function,  and 
ve  would  not  hesitate  to  do  it  in  circumstances  where  the  glory  of  God  and  the  consolation  and 
«clincation  of  his  people  seemed  to  require  it. 

This  was  said  in  reply  to  a  criticism  charging  you  with  holding  that  elders  have 
the  scriptural  right  to  administer  the  sacraments.  I  have,  therefore,  a  right  to 
htlieve  that  you  hold  that  elders  have  "scriptural  authority  for  performing  all  the 
functions  of  the  ordained  minister." 

My  third  proposition  raises  the  question  of  the  expediency  of  adopting  the  over- 
tures now  before  the  Church,  and  certainly  it  is  a  plain  expression  of  our  different 
-views.  The  three  propositions  taken  together  are  a  clear  statement  of  our  disagree- 
ment, which  is  not  the  case  with  those  you  present,  as  they  obscure  or  abolish  the 
■dilerences  between  us. 

Your  first  uses  the  phrase  "office  of  an  elder."  A  minister  is  an  elder.  Our 
•controversy  has  reference  to  "ruling  elders,"  which  is  the  name  always  used  in  our 
E^r. a  of  Government,  and  in  the  overtures  now  before  the  Church. 

Y"mr  second  presents  the  question  whether  ministers  have  "official  superiority  in 
rui^-ship."  About  this  we  do  not  differ.  I  hold  that  ministers  and  elders  are 
equvl  as  rulers.  A  moderator  does  not  rule  except  when  he  gives  a  casting  vote, 
or  c*  fcides  a  point  of  order,  and  these  are  not  ministerial  acts,  although  some  acts 
of  a    aoderatc  are  necessarilv  ministerial. 


[6] 

Your  third  is  abstract  in  form.  It  docs  not  affirm  nor  deny  the  expediency  of 
adopting  the  present  overtures,  which  is  now  the  question  before  the  Church. 

When  you  say,  in  italics,  "The  question  is  a  question  of  amending  a  suhnrdinate 
standard  to  make  it  more  ftdly  conform  to  the  supreme  standard"  you  beg  the  question. 
1  think  I  will  be  able  to  6how  that  the  amendment  proposed  will  diminish  the  con- 
formity of  our  church  polity  to  the  "supreme  standard,"  the  Scriptures,  and  my 
judgment  is  that  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries  will  so  vote.  Again,  when  you 
affirm  that  "our  Confession  of  Faith  excludes  all  human  authority,  including  itself, 
from  any  voice  in  such  decisions,"  you  can  hardly  have  forgotten  that  the  Confes- 
sion professes  to  be  an  expression  of  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  and  that  it  requires 
church  officers  to  believe  it  by  taking  a  solemn  vow;  and  you  can  hardly  mean 
that  the  Church  has  no  authority,  in  voting  upon  the  pending  or  other  overtures, 
to  decide  for  itself  what  the  Bible  teaches  on  such  questions.  Certainly  the  Bible- 
is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  neither  you  nor  I  are  infallible  inter- 
preters. All  we  can  do  is  to  give  our  opinions,  and  let  the  Church  decide.  Such 
a  decision  is  the  Confession,  and  it  is  worthy  of  some  authority  with  you  and  me, 
for  have  we  not  adopted  it  "as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
word  of  God"? 

You  say  that  I  "state  affirmative  propositions  negatively,  so  as  to  take  the  advan- 
tage of  the  affirmative."  Not  at  all  1  My  propositions  will  have  to  be  supported  by 
affirmative  testimony  as  fully  and  completely  as  if  stated  affirmatively.  I  will  have 
no  advantage  in  this,  nor  do  I  seek  any. 

Your  anxiety  because  of  the  apparent  inconsistency  of  your  position  in  holding 
that  the  Book  makes  ruling  elders  eligible  to  the  moderatorship  and  at  the  same 
time  favoring  the  amendment,  is  groundless.  You  may  consistently  do  this  if  your 
aim  is  to  remove  the  doubts  of  others  and  not  your  own.  You  may  also  favor  the 
amendment  to  make  our  Standards  "more  fully  or  plainly  scriptural"  without  fear 
of  "a  dead-fall  rigged  up  with  such  a  bait."  In  the  same  connection  let  me  ask  you 
not  to  charge  me,  as  you  have  some  others  who  disagree  with  you,  with  seeking  to 
degrade  the  eldership.  I  believe  the  eldership  to  be  an  intelligent,  earnest  and  con- 
secrated class,  who  will  read  this  debate  for  the  sole  purpose  of  better  informing 
themselves  as  to  their  place  and  duties. 

Now,  therefore,  if  you  are  ready  to  discuss  these  propositions,  I  promise  you  to 
avoid  all  "doubtful  disputations,"  and  deal  in  "the  milk  of  the  word"  and  in  the 
law  of  our  church  polity.     Respectfully,  E.  R.  Monfort. 


IV. 

"  Herald  and  Presbyter,"  November  17,  iC85. 

THE  ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Dr.  Gray,  of  the  Interior,  does  not  reply  to  my  article  of  last  week,  for  the  reason, 
no  doubt,  that  I  was  unable  to  send  a  proof  in  time  for  him  to  prepare  an  answer. 
All  that  he  says  in  his  last  number  is  contained  in  the  following  : 

"Our  beloved  friend  in  Cincinnati  is  writing  around  in  a  wild  way  for  reinforce- 
ments. He  does  not  seem  to  have  much  confidence  either  in  the  editorial  staff  of 
which  he  is  a  part,  or  in  the  ministers  in  his  immediate  vicinity,  who  are  afraid  to- 
give  the  Assembly  discretionary  powers  in  the  election  of  its  moderator.  Dr.  Mon- 
fort  is  calling  for  help  in  all  parts  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Howard  Crosby,  of  New 
York,  writes  us  : 

"My  Dear  Dr.  Gray:— I  have  just  sent  E.  R.  Monfort  a  letter  in  reply  to  a  query,  as  follows  ; 
*Dear  Brother  Monfort:  The  ruling  elder  (as  I  take  it;  is  a  spiritual  ruler  in  the  church — the 
•deacon  being  a  helper  in  temporal  things.  Hence  he  is  included  in  the  category  of  1  Tim.  iii.  1-7. 
■"'Bishop  and  elder"  being  synonymous  (comp.versej).  He  differs  from  the  "minister"  (so-called) 
enly  as  not  preaching  (1  Tim.  v.  171.  The  church  has  only  elders  and  deacons  as  officers.  The 
elders  are  all  of  the  same  order,  and  hence  should  be  eligible  to  the  moderatorship.  This  is  to  me 
the  only  consistent  doctrine  ;  otherwise  elders  are  no  elders,  but  deacons.'  H.  C. 

"We  hear  of  these  appeals  by  Dr.  Monfort  for  help,  on  all  sides.  The  plan  is,  we 
suppose,  to  let  loose  an  avalanche  of  them  upon  us  in  the  course  of  the  debate. — 
Interior,  Nov.  11th." 

My  note  to  which  Dr.  Crosby  replies,  was  not  an  appeal  for  aid,  but  a  request  for 
his  definition  in  as  brief  a  form  as  possible  of  a  minister  and  a  ruling  elder.     The 


same  request  was  sent  to  six  or  eight  others,  my  purpose  being  to  examine  the  dif- 
ferent shades  of  opinion,  it  they  Bhould  differ,  and  thereby  be  able  t<>  reinforce  my 
own  views.  All  hut  two  have  replied  to  my  letters,  and  among  these  I>r.  Crosby 
stands  alone.  All  the  others  stand  by  the  Form  of  Government  as  the  best  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  This  course,  which  was  adopted  without  consulting  any 
one,  my  judgment  approves,  and  1  might  have  done  well  to  go  further,  for  1  regard 
it  ad  the  duty  of  everyone  who  undertakes  to  discuss  so  important  a  question,  to 
exhaust  every  source  of  information,  whether  it  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  the 
Form  of  Government,  the  opinions  of  religious  teachers,  books,  magazines,  Minnies 
of  the  General  Assembly,  or  elsewhere.  It  is  very  obvious  I  could  not  expect  ail 
from  Dr.  Crosby,  after  his  declaring  himself  so  fully  and  frankly  at  the  last  General 
Assembly  as  favorable  to  the  election  of  ruling  elders  as  moderators.  A  good 
lawyer,  when  he  has  an  important  case,  is  always  concerned  as  to  the  grounds  of 
opposition,  and  the  evidence  that  may  be  produced  at  the  trial.  A  military  com- 
mander will  take  the  deepest  interest  in  the  strength  and  movements  of  the  enemy. 
So  my  limited  experience  in  law  and  war  has  lod  me  to  desire  an  interview  with 
clear-headed  men  like  Dr.  Crosby,  who  differ  with  me.  These  letters  were  not 
intended  for  publication,  and  it  was  not  my  plan  to  let  loose  an  avalanche  of  them 
upon  Dr.  tJray  in  the  course  of  the  debate.  Nor  do  1  believe  that  Dr.  Crosby 
expected  him  to  publish  his  letter  in  the  Interior.  It  was  simply  as  Dr.  Crosby 
says,  "In  reply  to  a  query,"  and  it  meets  the  point. 

In  reply  to  Dr.  Crosby,  now  that  his  letter  has  been  published,  I  will  say  :  1.  I 
can  not  accept  his  opinion  that  "the  Church  has  only  elders  and  deacons  as  officers ;" 
only  two  officers  instead  of  three  ;  for  I  believe  that  our  Standards  are  consistent 
with  Scripture  when  it  is  said  in 

Chap.  III.,  Sec.  2.  The  ordinary  and  perpetual  officers  in  the  church  are  Bishops  or  Pastors; 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  usually  styled  Ruling  Elders;  and  Deacons. 

2.  I  can  not  agree  with  him  when  he  says  :  "He  (the  ruling  elder)  differs  from 
the  minister  (so-called)  only  as  not  preaching."  They  differ,  also,  in  their  authority 
as  to  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  ordination,  as  well  as  church  censures. 
The  minister  or  pastor  is  an  elder,  but  he  is  more  than  an  elder,  as  our  Church  Con- 
stitution says : 

Chap.  IV.  The  pastoral  office  is  the  first  in  the  church,  both  for  dignity  and  usefulness.  The 
person  who  fills  this  office,  hath,  in  Scripture,  obtained  different  names  expressive  of  his  various 
duties.  As  he  has  the  oversight  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  he  is  termed  bishop.  As  he  feeds 
them  with  spiritual  food,  he  is  termed  pastor.  As  he  serves  Christ  in  his  church,  he  is 
termed  minister.  As  it  is  his  duty  to  be  grave  and  prudent,  and  an  example  of  the  flock, 
and  to  govern  well  in  the  house  and  kingdom  ot  Christ,  he  is  termed  presbyter  or  elder.  As 
he  is  the  messenger  of  God,  he  is  termed  the  angel  of  the  church.  As  he  is  sent  to  declare  the 
will  of  God  to  sinners,  and  to  beseech  them  to  be  reconciled  to  God  through  Christ,  he  is  termed 
embassador.  And  as  he  dispenses  the  manifold  grace  of  God,  and  the  ordinances  instituted  by 
Christ,  he  is  termed  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God. 

Some  of  these  definitions  of  a  minister  apply  in  part  to  ruling  elders,  and  some  do 
not.  That  we  may  know  the  place  assigned  to  the  ruling  elder  in  our  Church,  and 
how  he  differs  in  office  or  degree  from  the  minister,  the  Form  of  Government  says: 

Chap  V.  Ruling  elders  are  properly  the  representatives  of  the  people,  chosen  by  them  for  the 
purpose  of  exercising  government  and  discipline  in  conjunction  with  pastors  or  ministers.  This 
office  has  been  understood,  by  a  great  part  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  churches,  to  be  designated 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  title  of  governments,  and  of  those  who  rule  well  but  do  not  labor 
in  word  and  doctrine. 

This  definition  shows  that  the  ruling  elder  is  not  the  same  with  the  minister  in 
grade  and  functions.  It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  he  can  not  do  all  that  is  required 
of  a  moderator,  for  the  offices  are  manifestly  Dot  the  same. 

I  do  not  forget  that  Dr.  Crosby  gives  what  he  regards  as  scriptural  definitions, 
and  that  quotations  from  our  Form  of  Government  do  not  disprove  all  that  he 
claims.  I  draw  on  our  Standards  only  to  show  that  I  hold  the  same  views  with  the 
framers  of  our  Book;  that  his  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  is  erroneous.  I  will 
give  the  Scripture  argument  in  due  time. 

Although  I  have  no  intention  of  publishing  the  answers  to  my  note  to  a  half  dozen 
or  more  eminent  men,  chiefly  theological  professors,  I  feel  like  doing  so  since  the 
publication  of  what  Dr.  Crosby  wrote,  especially  for  the  reason  that  all  take  a  differ- 
ent view  from  him.  I  have  no  reply  from  Dr.  Skinner,  but  when  it  comes  I  feel 
quite  sure  lie  will  be  found  to  be  in  harmony  with  other  teachers  of  theology.  Here 
is  what  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  has  to  say : 


[8] 


Princeton,  N.  J.,  November  i,  1886. 
Dr.  E.  R.  Mon/ort — Dear  Sir: — According  to  our  Book,  a  ruling  elder  is  (1)  a  layman  engaged 
in  secular  life — a  doctor,  or  merchant,  or  farmer,  or  otherwise  However  men  may  object  to  the 
distinction  between  lay  and  clerical,  it  is  impossible  to  exclude  it  as  long  as  the  ministry  is  set 
apart  from  all  worldly  business  and  consecrated  entirely  to  sacred  things  ;  as  long  as  it  is  made  a 
distinct  profession,  for  which  men  are  prepared  by  a  special  education,  and  in  which  they 
are  supported  by  a  professional  income.  And  all  experience  proves  that  it  is  injurious,  in 
the  highest  degree,  to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  if  these  are  left  at  the  disposal  of  the 
Clerical  class  alone.  According  to  our  Book  the  ruling  elder  is,  in  (2)  the  second  place,  chosen 
to  represent  the  people  in  the  church  courts,  and  (3)  as  such  a  representative  to  rule  in  the  exer- 
cise of  the  church  power  vested  in  the  people  fundamentally. 

A  minister  is  all  this  and  more,  for  the  higher  office  includes  the  lower.  He  is  a  representative 
of  the  people  and  rules  in  virtue  of  their  election  as  pastor.  But  besides  this  (1)  he  is  ordained 
to  preach  and  teach  as  an  embassador  for  God,  and  to  administer  sealing  ordinances  ;  (2)  in  order 
to  this  he  is  set  apart  to  the  distinct  clerical  order  or  profession,  specially  educated  and  salaried 
to  that  end.and  separated  from  all  secular  pursuits.  The  movement  in  favor  of  making  elders 
moderators  is  certainly  new.  It  was  never  in  the  minds  of  the  founders  of  the  Reformed  or  Pres- 
byterian churches,  or  of  their  successors.  It  has  no  meaning,  unless  it  is  a  practical  deduction 
from  the  theory  that  ministers  of  the  gospel  and  ruling  elders  have  received  the  same  ordination 
and  occupy  the  same  office.  This  is  (1 1  pure  episcopacy.  Each  congregation  would  be  presided  over 
by  a  bench  of  clergymen,  of  whom  one  would  be  set  over  the  rest  by  his  special  education  and 
functions,  and  by  his  permanent  presidency  as  pastor;  (2)  this  proposed  new  system  would  be 
purely  hierarchical,  leaving  absolutely  no  room  for  lay  representation.  Hence  it  would  be  in  its 
principles  and  necessary  logic  absolutely  un-Presbyterian — the  opposite  of  our  historic  Book. 

Yours  truly,  A.  A.  Hodge. 

Dr.  Shedd,  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  it  will  be  noted,  holds 
the  same  views  with  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  and  his  father,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  He 
writes : 

New  York,  November  3,  1886. 

Dr.  E.  R.  Monfort,  Esq. — Dear  Sir: — I  am  glad  that  you  have  undertaken  to  defend  the  posi- 
tions laid  down  in  your  printed  list,  and  should  be  very  willing  to  aid  you  in  any  way.  But  I  am 
not  an  expert  in  church  polity.  If  I  were  to  construct  an  argument,  I  should  avail  myself  of  Dr. 
Charles  Hodge's  views  of  the  eldership  as  given  in  his  "Church  Polity."  (See  index,  articles 
"Elder"  and  "Eldership.")  Yours  very  truly, 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 

Prof.  McClelland,  of  Allegheny  Theological  Seminary,  and  other  ministers  write 
in  the  same  strain.  E.  R.  Monfort. 


V. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"   November  24,  1886. 

THE  ELDER-MODERATORSHIP. 

Dr.  E.  R.  Monfort,  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter:  Dear  Brother : — Putting  aside  the 
minor  matters  in  your  letter,  let  us  come  to  an  agreement.  My  first  proposition  for 
debate  was : 

I.  Is  the  office  of  the  elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  office  instituted  by  divine  authority, 
and  by  that  name  designated  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments? 

The  only  objection  you  make  to  this  proposition  is  that  the  word  "ruling"  is 
omitted.  "  Very  well,  let  it  be  amended  so  as  to  meet  your  wishes;  it  will  then  read, 
stated  negatively: 

I.  The  office  of  the  ruling  elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  the  office  insti- 
tuted by  divine  authority  and  designated  by  the  name  "elder"  in  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament. 

In  regard  to  my  second,  you  say: 

Your  second  presents  the  question  whether  ministers  have  "official  superiority  in  rulership." 
About  this  we  do  not  differ.     I  hold  that  ministers  and  elders  are  equal  as  rulers. 

Very  good  indeed.  We  are  now  agreed  that  ministers  and  elders  are  equal  in 
rulership. 

I  will,  if  you  wish,  accept  your  second,  after  making  it  clear  by  inserting  the 
word  "scriptural,"  which  would  make  it  read  : 

II.  Ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  scriptural  order,  though  they 
have  some  functions  in  common. 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  a  repetition  of  the  first,  and  therefore  not  nec- 
essary. 

I  will  accept  your  third  if  you  will  make  it  colorless  in  regard  to  the  existing  situ- 
ation. You  certainly  do  not  wish  me  to  accept  a  form  of  statement  which  im- 
plies what  I  do  not  believe.     Put  it  in  some  such  way  as  this : 


[0  J 

III.  Tt  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  overtures  now  before  the  Church  concerning 
the  eligibility  of  ruling  elders  to  the  moderatorahip. 

Now  Let  me  try  to  clear  away  .some  of  your  minor  objections  by  satisfying  them 
or  dispelling  them. 

You  say  thai  1  have  avoided  si  line  points  which  you  consider  vital  to  the  discus- 
sion. Very  well,  I  will  debate  with  you  any  point  on  which  we  may  differ  in  regard 
to  the  eldership  on  any  grounds  you  may  choose,  provided  you  first  debate  the 
scriptural  question  pure  and  simple. 

IOU  say  I  challenged  you.  Nay,  brother,  unless  I  did  so  by  "challenging  the 
panel."  I  have  repeatedly  said  that  I  did  not  believe  that  any  man  on  your  side 
dared  to  discuss  tins  question  as  a  question  of  Scripture.  If,  as  you  now  say,  your 
first  letter  to  me  was  intended  as  a  reply  to  my  general  challenge,  then  you  publicly 
admitted  the  charge,  and  showed  that  you  did  not  dare  to  meet  the  scriptural  issue. 
You  substituted  another  question,  and  one  not  now  before  the  Church  ;  namely,  the 
present  eligibility  of  elders. 

I  do  not  care  for  your  violation  of  a  personal  right  (which  right  every  one 
acknowledges,  and  which  even  a  duelist  would  respect),  by  dictating  terms  in  your 
challenge,  except  for  the  fact  that  under  it  you  are  trying  to  force  side  issues  upon 
mi  in  place  of  the  main  question. 

Y'ou  remind  me  that  the  Standards  are  scriptural.  Very  well,  then  ;  if  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards  are  identical  on  this  subject,  what  possible 
apology  have  you  to  offer  for  not  going  to  the  Scriptures  alone  ?  As  a  lawyer,  you 
know  that  no  judge  would  allow  you  to  put  a  synopsis  in  evidence  when  the  full 
original  was  in  court,  and  you  never  would  make  yourself  ridiculous  in  a  court- 
room by  proposing  such  a  thing.  But  the  matter  is  more  serious  than  that.  Refus- 
ing to  accept  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  authority  is  disobedience  to  our  Lord's  com- 
mand. It  is  to  put  the  word  of  man  on  an  equality  with  the  word  of  God.  It  is 
to  cast  reproach  on  the  primary  principle  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  dis- 
tinctive principle  of  evangelical  Christianity.  Any  Romanist  will  cheerfully  go  to 
the  Scriptures  with  you  if  you  will  allow  him  to  put  his  interpretation  of  them  as 
of  equal  authority  with  the  text.  It  is  of  no  use  for  you  to  deny  that  you  are  in 
this  category  until  you  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  Your  acts  are  facts;  J 
your  words  may  be  dreams. 

It  is  ridiculously  absurd  to  ask  us  to  submit  a  question,  raised  by  a  constitutional 
movement  to  amend  the  Standards,  to  the  Standards.  If  we  did  not  believe  them 
capable  of  the  construction  you  put  upon  them,  what  a  set  of  blunderheads  we 
would  be  to  urge  the  amendment !  If  the  Standards  must,  like  the  Scripture,  be 
tested  by  themselves,  then  we  have  popery  in  doctrine,  as  we  practically  have  had 
prelacy  in  policy.  It  is  because  you  gentlemen  know  that  you  can  put  the  plausible 
construction  upon  the  Standards,  which  construction  it  is  the  object  of  the  amend- 
ments to  forbid  ;  it  is  because  you  know  this  that  you  make  the  ridiculous  demand 
upon  us  to  submit  the  question  of  amending  the  Standards  to  the  Standards.  And 
it  is  equally  because  you  know  that  the  Scriptures  are  dead  against  you  that  you  can 
not  be  coaxed  or  taunted  into  a  debate  of  the  scriptural  question. 

You  say  the  name  "ruling  elder"  "is  always  used  in  our  Form  of  Government." 
Y'ou  are  a  rash  man  to  propose  to  argue  a  question  on  the  basis  of  a  book  which  you 
evidently  have  not  read.  The  simple  scriptural  term  "elder,"  is  used  in  the  Form 
of  Government  twenty-eight  times — much  more  than  twice  as  many  as  the  phrase 
"ruling  elder."  Of  these  the  instances  in  which  you  will  admit  that  the  simpler 
term  is  applied  to  our  class  are  about  double  as  many  as  those  in  which  "ruling 
elder"  is  used  (note  1).     You  say: 

When  you  say  in  italics,  "The  question  is,  a  question  of  amending  a  subordinate  Standard 
to  make  it  more  fully  conform  to  the  supreme  Standard,"  you  beg  the  question.  I  think  I 
•will  be  able  to  show  the  amt-ndment  proposed  will  diminish  the  conformity  of  our  church  polity  to 
the  "supreme  Standard,"  the  Scriptures,  and  my  judgment  is  that  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries 
•will  so  vote. 

The  proposition  that  the  way  to  amend  a  subordinate  Standard  is  to  make  it  more 
fully  conform  to  the  supreme  Standard,  is  an  axiom — a  self-evident  proposition.  Is 
that  the  reason  why  you  call  it  "begging  the  question"?  Or  is  it  because  you  think 
that  I  assert  that  tfie  amendment  will  make  it  more  fully  conform?  If  so,  it  is  then 
self-evident  that  I  give  you  your  full  held  to  deny  it,  so  that  it  is  absurd  to  say  I 
begged  the  question.     You  take  the  last  position  and  say  that  you  will  be  able  to 


[  10] 

shew  the  contrary.  If  so,  then  I  have  begged  none  of  your  premises.  And  now, 
let  me  demand  in  conclusion:  If  you  know  that  you  are  "able  to  show  that  the 
amendment  proposed  will  diminish  the  conformity  of  our  polity  to  the  supreme 
Standard,  the  Scriptures,"  why  in  the  world  do  you  "stand  trembling  on  the  brink"' 
of  the  scriptural  question  "and  fear  to  launch  away"  ?  Wm.  C.  Gray. 


VI. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  November  24,   1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 
Dr.  W.  C.  Gray,  of  the  Interior: — 

Dear  Brother: — Since  reading  your  last  article,  I  am  satisfied  we  shall  agree 
upon  the  issues  to  be  discussed.  I  am  still  at  a  loss,  however,  to  know  why  you  do 
not  desire  to  discuss  my  first  proposition,  which  raises  only  the  question  of  the  eligi- 
bility of  ruling  elders  to  the  moderatorship  under  our  present  Form  of  Government, 
especially  in  view  of  your  first  effort  "to  clear  away  the  minor  objections."  You 
now  say: 

You  say  that  I  have  avoided  some  points  which  you  consider  vital  to  the  discussion.  Very  well ; 
I  will  debate  with  you  any  point  on  which  we  may  differ  in  regard  to  the  eldership,  on  any 
grounds  you  may  choose,  provided  you  first  debate  the  scriptural  question  pure  and  simple. 

You  are  mistaken  as  to  my  refusal  to  discuss  the  questions  from  a  scriptural  stand- 
point. I  constructed  my  propositions  in  what  seemed  to  me  the  logical  order. 
My  second  was  framed  in  view  of  the  presentation  of  a  scriptural  argument,  and  it 
was  my  purpose  to  go  into  the  Scriptures  when  we  reached  it.  You  need  not  have 
any  fears  on  that  question,  nor  waste  any  time  in  pressing  it  upon  me.  Your  first 
proposition,  as  now  presented,  is  : 

1.  The  office  of  the  ruling  elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  the  office  instituted  by  di- 
vine authority  and  designated  by  the  name  "elder"  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. 

What  you  have  in  view  in  this,  will  be  included  in  the  scriptural  argument  on 
your  second.  I  think  we  agree  that  the  ruling  elder  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
holds  an  office  instituted  by  divine  authority,  and  designated  by  the  name  elder  in 
the  Scriptures.  I  may  possibly  differ  with  you,  if  you  hold  that  the  term  elder  in 
the  Scriptures,  in  every  place  it  is  used,  is  equivalent  to  "the  ruling  elder  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church."  Sometimes  it  is  used  to  designate  a  spiritual  ruler;  sometimes- 
political  or  secular;  sometimes  both,  and  often  only  an  old  man.  We  may  differ 
on  some  points,  but  we  certainly  can  not  take  opposite  sides  on  your  first  proposition 
as  a  whole. 

You  agree  to  accept  my  second  proposition  with  the  word  "scriptural"  inserted. 
I  do  not  see  that  this  changes  the  proposition,  as  the  scriptural  argument  must  be 
made  under  it.  Very  well,  the  issue  is  joined  on  the  second,  which  will  be  number 
one,  as  follows: 

I.  Ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  scriptural  order,  though  they  have  some  func- 
tions in  common. 

I  will  also  accept  the  form  you  propose  for  the  third,  which  will  be  number  two, 
as  follows: 

II.  It  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  overtures  now  before  the  Church  concerning  the  eligibility 
of  ruling  elders  to  the  moderatorship. 

Furthermore,  to  hasten  the  joinder  of  issues,  I  am  willing  to  confine  the  discus- 
sion to  this  proposition  alone,  if  you  choose,  and  I  will  promise  to  give  attention 
"first"  to  proving  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  overtures,  for  the  reason  that 
"ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  scriptural  order,  though  they  have 
some  functions  in  common."  This  will  insure  you  the  scriptural  argument  from  my 
standpoint,  which  you  regard  as  of  so  much  importance,  which  I  promised  and 
always  intended  to  give.  Now,  it  lies  with  you  to  say  whether  we  shall  discuss  the 
two  propositions,  or  the  latter,  which  covers  all  the  ground  of  "lawfulness  or  ex- 
pediency." 

You  still  seem  to  think  that  I  have  "some  sort  of  a  dead-fall  rigged  up."  with 
these  questions  for  bait.  I  assure  you  I  am  ready  and  anxious  for  the  debate  on  its- 
merits,  and  will  frankly  aud  fully  present  my  side.     With  this  in  view,  I  have 


[  11  ] 

accepted  your  last  two  propositions,  and,  if  you   agree,  will  begin  the  debate  at 
Once. 
There  are  several  minor  matters  in  your  article  to  which  I  make  no  reply.     They 

may  eome  up  in  the  COUrse  of  the  debate,  and  if  1  take  up  time  with  them  now,  we 
may  keep  on  skirmishing  until  the  end.  I  am  as  anxious  for  the  debate  as  you  are. 
If  you  aecept  the  issue  as  now  presented,  we  need  not  waste  further  time  witli  pre- 
liminaries. 10.  R.  Moni'okt. 

Sinee  the  above  was  in  type  we  have  had  a  call  from  Dr.  Gray,  who,  after  reading 
what  we  say  above,  agrees  that  the  discusion  shall  proceed  upon  the  two  proposi- 
tions.    Next  week  we  will  argue  the  first,  which  is  as  follows: 

No.  i.  Ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  scriptural  ordpr,  though  they  have  some 
functions  in  common. 

VII. 

"Herald  and  Fresbyter,"  December  I,  1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 
Dr.    W.   C.    Gray,  Editor  Interior: — 

Having  settled  the  questions  to  be  discussed,  I  will  undertake  to  establish  the 
first  proposition,  viz.: 

I  Ruling  elders  and  ministers  are  not  of  the  same  scriptural  order,  though  they  have  some 
functions  in  common. 

In  a  public  discussion  it  is  important  to  agree  as  to  the  meaning  of  terms.  In 
this  case,  happily,  we  do  not  differ.  (1)  The  terms  ruling  elders  and  ministers  are 
used  in  oar  propositions  and  in  the  overtures  before  the  Church  in  the  same  sense. 
(2)  Moreover,  as  the  overtures,  if  adopted,  will  become  a  part  of  our  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment, it  follows  that  the  meaning  of  the  terms  ruling  elders  and  ministers  in  the 
propositions  and  the  overtures  must  be  the  same  as  in  the  Form  of  Government. 
This  you  will  not  deny,  for  certainly  you  can  not  be  in  favor  of  adding  to  the  Form 
of  Government,  or  amending  any  of  its  chapters,  so  as  to  make  it  as  a  whole  contra- 
dictory or  confused  by  using  the  same  terms  in  different  senses.  (3)  We  can  not 
differ  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  these  terms,  for  the  reason  that  the  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment as  it  now  is,  and  will  be,  if  amended  by  the  adoption  of  the  elder-moderator 
overtures,  contains,  and  will  contain,  careful  and  complete  definitions  of  the  orders. 
or  offices  of  ruling  elders  and  ministers  verified  by  Scripture  quotations.  It  seems 
to  me  we  ought  to  have  little  difficulty  in  finding  out  the  functions  of  the  two  offices, 
what  they  have  in  common  and  wherein  they  differ.  I  will  begin  with  the  definition 
of  ruling  elders: 

Chap.  V.  Ruling  elders  are  properly  the  representatives  of  the  people,  chosen  by  them  for  the 
purpose  of  exercising  government  and  discipline  in  conjunction  with  pastors  or  ministers.  This 
office  has  been  understood,  by  a  great  part  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  churches,  to  be  desig- 
nated in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  title  of  governments,  and  of  those  who  rule  well  but  do  not 
labor  in  word  and  doctrine. 

There  is  but  one  function  in  this  definition,  and  it  is  not  independent.  It  is  rel- 
ative. It  is  "exercising  government  and  discipline,"  and  doing  so  "in  conjunction 
with  pastors  or  ministers,"  and  that  is  the  whole  of  it.  Exercising  government  and 
discipline  includes  promoting  good  order,  advising,  warning,  guiding,  reproving, 
rebuking,  suspending  and  excommunicating. 

This  view  of  the  office  is  scriptural.  Such  a  ruler  is  referred  to  by  Paul  in  1  Cor. 
xii.  23:  "And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first,  apostles;  secondarily,  proph- 
ets; thirdly,  teachers;  after  that,  miracles;  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  govern- 
ments," etc.  The  last  term  means  rulers.  All  of  these  offices,  some  of  them 
belonging  only  to  the  early  church,  and  some  permanent,  are  spoken  of  in  the  same 
passage  as  differing,  "Are  all  apostles,  are  all  prophets,"  etc.  The  same  order  is 
evidently  referred  to  in  Rom.  xii.  6-8,  where  it  is  said:  "Having  then  gifts  differ- 
ing according  to  the  grace  that  is  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy 
according  to  the  proportion  of  faith;  ...  he  that  ruleth,  with  diligence." 
The  order  of  ruling  elder  is  also  indicated  when  we  are  told  (Acts  xv.  22)  that  the 
"apostles  and  elders  with  the  whole  church"  sent  an  epistle  to  the  church  at  Antioch. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  from  Antioch  went  through  Asia  Minor  and  "ordained  them 


[12] 


elders  in  every  church."  Paul  left  Titus  in  Crete  "to  ordain  elders  in  every  city." 
All  the  churches  had  elders,  a  session;  not  a  siiujle  elder.  Dr.  Hatfield  says:  "No 
instance  is  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  of  a  church,  however  small,  having  but 
a  single  elder."  The  elders  belonged  to  the  locality,  and  were  rulers  only.  Ruling 
elders  in  the  Christian  Church  were  like  the  elders  of  Israel,  chosen  by  Moses,  as 
his  session,  "to  exercise  government  and  discipline  in  conjunction  with"  himself. 
Tiny  were  rulers,  and  only  rulers.  They  had  no  higher  function  or  authority. 
Moses  was  both  ruler  and  prophet,  and  I  may  add  was  the  moderator  also.  No  one 
of  the  seventy  elders  aspired  to  that  dignity. 

The  difference  in  order  and  functions  of  the  two  offices  will  be  readily  seen  when 
we  examine  the  definitions  of  the  ministry  in  our  Standards  and  in  the  Scriptures. 
Our  Book  says : 

Chap.  IV.  The  pastoral  office  is  the  first  in  the  church,  both  for  dignity  and  usefulness.  The 
person  who  fills  this  office  hath,  in  Scripture,  obtained  different  names  expressive  of  his  various 
duties.  As  he  has  the  oversight  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  he  is  termed  bishop.  As  he  feeds  them 
with  spiritual  food,  he  is  termed  pastor.  As  he  serves  Christ  in  his  church,  he  is  termed  minister. 
As  it  is  his  duty  to  be  grave  and  prudent,  and  an  example  of  the  flock,  and  to  govern  well  in  the 
house  and  kingdom  of  Christ,  he  is  termed  presbyter  or  elder.  As  he  is  the  messenger  of  God, 
he  is  termed  the  angel  of  the  church.  As  he  is  sent  to  declare  the  will  of  God  to  sinners,  and  to 
beseech  them  to  be  reconciled  to  God  through  Christ,  he  is  termed  embassador.  And  as  he  dis- 
penses the  manifold  grace  of  God,  and  the  ordinances  instituted  by  Christ,  he  is  termed  steward 
■of  the  mysteries  of  God. 

In  our  Standards  the  term  minister  is  used  over  a  hundred  times,  which  is  four- 
fold more  than  the  use  of  all  the  other  terms  in  this  definition.  This  is  well,  for  it 
is  also  used  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  office  proportionately  oftener  than  pastor, 
bishop,  angel,  steward  and  embassador.  Elder  is  often  applied  to  ministers,  who 
are  elders  as  well  as  ministers.  Both  ruling  elders  and  preaching  elders  are  cer- 
tainly referred  to  when  Paul  says  (1  Tim.  v.  17):  "Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be 
counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine." 
Ministers  are  surely  meant  when  it  is  said,  "Now,  then,  we  are  embassadors  for 
Christ,  as  though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us;"  "Who  also  hath  made  us  able  min- 
isters of  the  new  testament;"  "Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as  of  the  ministers  of 
Christ  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God."  If  all  these  terms  are  proper  desig- 
nations of  the  ministry — bishop,  pastor,  minister,  elder,  angel,  embassador  and 
steward — what  are  the  functions  of  the  office?  What  functions  have  ministers 
in  common  with  the  ruling  elder  ?  What  functions  that  are  different  or  of  higher 
degree?     In  what  do  the  offices  or  orders  differ? 

A  minister,  as  a  presbyter  or  elder,  has  the  same  functions  with  the  ruling  elder. 
There  is  no  difference  between  them  in  rulership.  They  have  the  same  right  to 
discuss  and  decide.  A  minister  as  a  bishop  (overseer)  and  pastor  not  only  exercises 
ministerial  functions,  but  also  those  of  a  ruler,  and  the  ruling  elders  are  so  far  his 
associates,  having  in  conjunction  with  him  pastoral  care  and  oversight.  Without, 
therefore,  claiming  that  bishop  and  pastor  necessarily  and  only  must  be  applied  to 
ministers,  I  find  the  higher  functions  in  other  designations  of  the  office  of  the  holy 
ministry,  in  those  that  lift  the  office  above  the  plane  of  ruler  to  that  of  official  repre- 
sentative of  the  King  and  Head  of  the  Church,  such  as  messenger  of  God,  embas- 
sador of  Christ,  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  The  higher  functions  of  the 
minister  are  exercised  in  his  official  capacity  as  preacher  and  teacher,  and  as  lie  is 
a  dispenser  of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  ordinances  of  the  church,  in  preaching  '.he 
gospel,  blessing  the  people,  dispensing  the  sacraments,  and  by  conferring  office  by 
ordination.  This  official  service  he  performs,  not  as  the  representative  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  of  God,  and  because  he  was  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron.  Ruling  elders 
are  never  asked  in  regard  to  a  call  of  God.  Their  call  is  from  the  people,  while 
no  one  can  enter  the  ministry  without  having  been  examined  by  the  presbytery  as 
to  his  views  in  seeking  the  ministry  and  his  evidence  of  a  call  of  God.  I  think  I 
may  therefore  adopt  as  my  own  the  language  of  the  New  School  (ieneral  Assembly 
of  I860  (Minutes,  p.  242),  in  its  action  denying  the  right  of  ruling  elders  to  lay  on 
their  hands  in  presbytery  at  the  ordination  of  a  minister,  on  which  both  Assem- 
blies took  the  same  ground,  viz.: 

It  can  not  be  denied  that,  in  the  Bible,  a  distinction  is  recognized  between  those  presbyters  who 
rule  only,  and  those  who  both  rule  and  preach.  Some  are  set  apart  expressly  to  preach  the  gospel 
and  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  God's  house.  They  are  presbyters  in  common  with  others, 
but  as  ministers  of  Christ,  they  have  functions  and  rights  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  are  required 
to  possess  proper  qualifications. 


[13]    • 

The  difference  of  order  and  function  thus  indicated  in  the  Scriptures  is  impor- 
tant in  the  discussion  of  the  elder^oderator  overture.  The  office  of  moderator  in 
a  church  court  involves  the  exercise,  not  only  of  government,  but  of  the  functions 

belonging   exclusively  to   the   ministry.      For  instance,    a   moderator   must   offer   the 

prayer  of  ordination  with  the  Laying  on  of  hands,  in  my  view,  that  an  elder  can 
aot  do  this,  1  am  sustained  by  the  action  of  both  the  old  and  New  School  Assem- 
blies. There  are  also  other  things  which  equally  involve  ministerial  functions. 
The  overtures,  indeed,  recognize  this  by  providing  that  where  an  elder  is  chosen  to 
the  office,  be  shall  call  a  minister  to  perform  "any  acts  appropriate  only  to  an 
ordained  minister."  Not  only  does  our  Constitution,  as  it  is,  require  the  distinc- 
tion for  which  I  contend,  but  the  Constitution  as  it  would  be,  if  amended  by  the 
adoption  of  the  overtures  which  you  favor,  will  recognize  it  more  strongly.  The 
expediency  of  adopting  these  overtures  is  not  now  before  us.  it  will  come  up  in 
the  discussion  of  our  second  proposition.  All  I  now  contend  for  is  that  the  offices 
are  different,  though  they  have  some  functions  in  common.  This  I  think  I  have 
sustained  with  scriptural  proof. 

Episcopalians,  who  hold  to  three  orders,  neither  representing  the  people,  will 
not  agree  with  me;  nor  will  Congregationalists,  for  their  polity  is  government 
entirely  by  the  people;  but  Presbyterianisin  is  neither  a  hierarchy  nor  a  democracy. 
Our  ministry  is  called  of  God,  and  perpetuates  itself.  Our  ruling  elders  are  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  chosen  by  them  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  govern- 
ment in  conjunction  with  pastors  and  ministers.  E.  R.  Monfort. 


VIII. 

"  Herald  and  Presbyter,"  December  I,  1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

DR.    GRAY'S  FIRST   ARTICLE   IN   THE   DEBATE. 

We  are  then  agreed  on  two  very  important  propositions,  namely:  that  the  ruling 
and  teaching  elders  are  of  equal  authority,  and  that  the  office  of  the  Presbyterian 
ruling  elder  is  designated  by  the  simple  name  "elder"  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  I  now  call  the  attention  of  that  class  of  ecclesiastics_  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  who  deny  both  these  propositions,  to  the  fact  that  their  posi- 
tion is  regarded  as  indefensible,  even  by  those  who  agree  with  them  in  opposing 
the  overtures.  It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  Dr.  Monfort,  in  admitting  these  two 
fundamental  truths,  has  given  himself  very  narrow  room  to  stand  upon. 

Dr.  Monfort. says,  as  the  reader  has  observed:  "My  note  was  not  an  appeal  for 
aid."  Dr.  Shedd  replied  to  that  circular  note:  "I  should  be  very  glad  to  aid  you 
in  any  way,  but,"  etc.,  showing  that  Dr.  Shedd  understood  Dr.  Monfort  to  be  call- 
ing for  help. 

When  Dr.  Crosby's  reply  to  Dr.  Monfort's  circular  letter  was  received,  and  the 
fact  thereby  became  apparent  that  the  latter  was  accumulating  a  masked  battery  of 
heavy  guns  against  the  elders,  it  immediately  called  to  mind  a  similar  strategem 
devised  by  Satan  on  the  second  day  of  the  battle  in  heaven.  During  the  night  the 
infernal  hosts  "concocted  and  adusted"  gunpowder  of  "spirituous  and  fiery 
spume"  (something  like  Dr.  Shedd's  logic),  and  guns  as  huge  as  trunks  of  trees, 
which  were  ranged  in  league-long  batteries  and  masked  with  clouds  of  winged  war- 
riors.    At  Satan's  word  they  parted  right  and  left — 

"Immediate  in  a  flame  all  heaven  appeared; 

From  those  deep-throated  engines  belched — whose  roar 

Emboweled  with  outrageous  noise  the  air, 

Disgorging  foul 

Their  devilish  glut — chained  thunderbolts  and  hail 

Of  iron  globes." 

Michael  and  his  angels  were  knocked  endwise,  and  very  much  astonished,  but 
quickly  recovering — 

"Light  as  the  lightning  glimpse  they  ran,  they  flew  ; 
From  their  foundations  loosening  to  and  fro, 
They  plucked  the  seated  hills,  with  all  their  load — 
Rocks,  waters,  woods — and  by  the  shaggy  tops 
Uplifting—" 


flung  them  on  the  devil  and  his  big  guns  until  guns  and  devils  were  buried  five 
miles  deep ! 

And  so,  Elias,  if  you  would  not  have  your  masked  battery  of  theological  great 
guns  served  in  the  same  way,  you  had  better  take  them  in  out  of  the  rain.  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  waste  much  real  estate  in  disposing  of  them.  If  it  were,  I  should 
fling  upon  them  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England,  the  Free  Church  of  .Scotland, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  (South),  the  Cumberland  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  three  Pan-Presbyterian  councils  and  scores  of  presbyteries  of  our  own 
Church — all  of  whom  accept  the  same  "Form  of  Government,"  but  all  of  whom 
believe  that  ruling  elders  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  eligible  to  the  moderator- 
ship.  If  you  want  human  authority,  I  fling  twice  ten  thousand  learned  and  loyal 
Presbyterians  down  upon  each  several  one  of  your  big  guns.  Now  dig  them  out  if 
you  can ! 

You  undertake  to  refute  Dr.  Crosby  with  quotations  from  the  "Form  of  Gov- 
ernment." I  am  too  apt  to  see  the  humorous  side  of  things,  but  a  glance  at  the 
whole  situation  makes  your  serious  argument  a  matter  of  entertainment.  Why, 
there  you  stand,  holding  the  garments  of  those  who  hit  the  "Form  of  Government" 
with  a  stone  at  every  opportunity ;  and  yet  you  solemnly  ask  Dr.  Crosby  to  be  bound 
by  it!  You  are  a  director  of  Lane  Seminary,  as  your  venerable  father  also  is  ;  you 
two,  I  understand,  having  paramount  influence  in  it.  Your  Seminary  sends  out  its 
students  fully  taught  and  believing  that  there  is  no  divinely-instituted  form  of 
church  government  whatever.  If  your  theological  professors  were  as  loose  in 
regard  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  as  they  are  permitted  to  be  in  regard  to 
church  polity,  they  would  be  flung  instanter  over  the  fence  by  the  nearest  presby- 
tery.    Professor  Morris,  of  Lane,  teaches: 

"Our  Lord  seems  to  have  left  the  matter  of  (church)  organization  very  much  in  abeyance. 
Neither  have  the  apostles  so  fully  defined  their  conception  as  to  make  imperative  one  unvarying 
and  fully  authoritative  method  of  construction  for  all  lands  and  times.  .  .  .  Presbyterianism, 
jure  divino  —  a  system  directly  prescribed  and  enjoined  as  to  details  in  the  New  Testament — can 
no  more  be  proven  than  a.  jure  divino  Prelacy  or  Independency. — Ecclesiology,  pp.  121-139. 

The  late  Professor  Humphrey,  of  Lane,  said  in  his  lectures: 

"  Systems  of  church  polity,  as  such,  were  left  by  the  Apostolic  Church  to  be  worked  out  after- 
ward. No  present  system  of  church  government  or  polity  can  claim  to  he.  jure  divino." — J-rom 
a  written  report  by  Kev.  A.  J.  Brown. 

Such  being  the  teaching  of  your  own  Seminary,  is  it  not  rather  cool  to  call  Dr. 
Crosby  to  the  bar  of  a  book,  the  scriptural  authority  of  which  is  repudiated  by  and 
with  your  own  directorial  consent? 

Our  "Form  of  Government"  is  a  noble  production — the  noblest  work  of  the 
kind,  in  my  opinion,  that  was  ever  framed  by  the  mind  of  man.  I  prize  it  only 
second  to  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But  it  needs  to  be  made  conformable  to  iis 
proof-texts,  and  a  slight  change  will  do  it.  As  a  loose  creed  makes  loose  thinking, 
so  a  loose  polity  makes  loose  discipline.  The  prevailing  ram-shackle  looseness  of 
the  teaching  and  ideas  of  church  government  needs  to  be  keyed  up  to  the  Scrip- 
ture standard.  That  uork  would  have  been  done  by  the  Westminster  Assembly  when  our 
Standards  were  framed,  but  the  Presbyterians  of  that  body  were  compelled  by  mil- 
itary necessity  to  compromise.  If  the  Scotch  army  had  been  at  their  backs,  the 
elders  would, "from  that  day  to  this,  have  had  all  that  we  claim  for  them.  Of  this, 
more  hereafter. 

Dear  Doctor  Archie  Hodge  has  ascended  to  the  General  Assembly  above.  His 
brilliant  mind  and  kindly  heart  soared  to  heaven ;  his  body  he  laid  in  the  grave: 
and  with  that  fine  sense  of  the  fitness  of  things  which  marked  his  character,  he 
consigned  his  wrong-headedness,  by  mail,  to  Cincinnati.  I  was  aware  that  he  and 
some  more  of  the  Princetonians  had  prelatical  ways  of  thinking.  Notice  that  he 
three  or  four  times  uses  the  word  "clergy"  in  its  various  forms  to  designate  the 
Presbyterian  ministry.  A  clergyman  (Klerikos)  is  a  priest.  The  word  belongs 
exclusively  to  priestly  hierarchies.  He  speaks  of  "lay  representation,"  another 
prelatical  phrase,  which  is  equally  foreign  to  Presbyterian  literature  aud  thought. 
He  thinks  if  we  make  clergymen  of  our  elders  (which  God  forbid)  we  shall  have 
no  "lay  representation;"  and  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  secular  employment 
are  thereby  wholly  secularized.  How  about  Paul,  the  tent-maker?  Our  people 
who  have  a  rotary-eldership  and  double-geared  rotary  pastorship,  will  not  complain 
of  a  lack  of  representatives.  What  they  ask  is  that  their  representatives  be  allowed 
to  represent.     They  do  not  want  one  set  of  them  to  be  disfranchising  the  other. 


[15] 

Rev.  Dr.  George  Gillespie,  the  distinguished  Westminister  Assembly  divine,  in 
his  defense  of  the  eldership  (written  A.  D.  1G40)  seems  to  be  replying  to  Dr. 
I  [odge'a  letter  to  Dr.  Mont'ort,  so  apt  to  it  are  his  words.     He  says: 

It  i-,  lit  we  should  know  them  (the  elders)  by  their  right  names,  lest  we  nickname  and  miscall 
them.  Some  reproachfully  and  others  ignorantly  call  them  lay  elders.  But  the  distinction  of  tne 
clergy  and  laity  is  popish  and  anti-christian  ;  and  some  who  have  narrowly  considered  the  records 
of  ancient  times,  have  noted  this  distinction  as  one  of  the  grounds  whence  the  mystery  of  iniquity 
had  the  beginning  of  it.  The  name  of  clergy  appropriate  to  (appropriated  by)  ministers  is  full  rif 
pride  and  vainglory,  and  hath  made  the  holy  people  of  God  to  be  despised,  as  if  they  were  pro- 
fane and  unclean  in  comparison  of  their  ministers. — Government,  Chapter  I. 

I  now  propose  to  occupy  a  little  space  in  beginning  a  statement  of  the  Elders' 
Plea  for  Recognition,  and  I  could  not  do  so  in  any  way  more  satisfactory  than  to 
quote  a  passage  from  a  sermon  of  Rev.  Dr.  John  Hall,  of  New  York,  at  the  install- 
ation of  his  son,  Rev.  Thomas  C.  Hall,  a  short  time  ago,  as  pastor  of  the  Forty- 
iirst  Street  Church  of  Chicago : 

In  primitive  times  the  head  of  the  family  was  the  ruler.  When  several  families  were  associated 
together,  the  ruling  power  was  shared  by  all  the  heads  of  families  in  common.  When  the  asso- 
ciation of  families  became  larger,  a  town  was  organized,  and  then  delegates  were  chosen  to  rule. 
Hence,  the  elders  of  the  town.  In  our  Savior's  time  the  synagogues  were  governed  on  this  prin- 
ciple. Hence,  the  elders  of  the  congregation.  The  government  ot  the  synagogues  was  transferred 
to  the  Christian  Church.  When  churches  were  organized  among  Jews,  little  or  no  mention  is 
made  of  it,  because  they  were  familiar  with  it.  But  when  churcheswere  founded  among  Gentiles, 
this  principle  of  government  by  local  elders  was  introduced,  and  pains  taken  to  have  it  adopted 
and  understood.  As,  for  example,  Paul's  directions  on  this  point  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  When  the 
congregation  became  larger,  persons  who  had  gifts  were  chosen  to  be  teachers  -Uong  side  of  and 
in  connection  with  the  ruling  elders.  Just  as  in  the  organization  of  a  bank,  the  directors  at  first 
might  manage  its  affairs  along  with  their  own  business.  But  when  the  time  comes  that  the  bank 
requires  more  labor  than  the  directors  can  bestow  upon  it,  the  directors  choose  one  of  their 
number  and  set  him  apart  from  his  personal  business  to  have  charge,  of  the  affairs  of  the  bank. 
Thus  originated  the  teaching  office  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  along  this  line  of  common 
sense,  history  and  of  New  Testament  Scripture  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  seeks  to  fulfill  her 
mission  to  disciple  mankind.  It  is  a  simple,  scriptural,  God-honored  method.  Our  Presbyterian 
Church,  like  the  synagogue,  like  the  early  Christian  Church,  is  a  government  by  representatives. 
It  commends  itself  to  the  common-sense  of  men,  and  it  stands  all  along  its  history  God-sanctioned. 

I  will  further  avail  myself  of  a  quotation  indicating  the  position  which  I  propose 
to  maintain  and  defend.  Dr.  George  Gillespie,  above  quoted,  thus  summarizes  the 
doctrine  of  the  Presbyterians  of  the  Westminster  Assembly : 

The  administration  of  deacons  is  exercised  about  things  bodily  ;  the  administration  of  elders 
about  things  spiritual.  The  former  about  the  goods;  the  latter  about  the  government  of  the 
church.  Now,  elders  are  of  three  sorts :  i.  Preaching  elders,  or  pastors  2  Teaching  elders, 
or  doctors.  3.  Ruling  elders.  All  these  are  elders  because  they  have  voice  in  presbyteries  and 
all  assemblies  of  the  church,  and  the  government  of  the  church  is  incumbent  to  them  all. 

One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father,  one  order  in  God's 
house,  unity  in  trinity,  diversity  in  unity.  This  sublime  simplicity  is,  and  can  only 
be,  of  God ;  and  it  is  therefore  as  resistless  in  truth  as  it  is  God-like  in  conception. 

Wm.  C.  Gray. 


IX. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  December  8,  1886. 

THE  ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Dr.  W.  C.  Gray,  Editor  of  the  Interior: — 

Dear  Brother: — Your  "first  article  in  the  debate,"  as  you  designate  it, 
reprinted  on  our  second  page,  evidently  has  no  reference  to  the  propositions  under 
discussion,  but  is  in  reply  to  a  former  article  of  mine.  You  must  have  written 
your  opening  paragraph,  in  which  you  speak  of  points  of  agreement,  from  memory, 
for  they  are  inaccurate.  You  say  we  have  agreed  that  "the  ruling  and  teaching 
elder  are  of  equal  authority."  I  said  "that  ministers  and  elders  are  equal  as 
rulers,"  not  in  authority.  A  minister  has  authority  to  preach  and  do  other  things 
not  matters  of  rulership.  Your  second  statement  is  also  defective — "that  the  office 
of  the  Presbyterian  ruling  elder  is  designated  by  the  simple  name  elder  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments."  I  said,  "I  think  we  agree  that  the 
ruling  elder  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  holds  an  office  instituted  by  divine  author- 
ity and  designated  by  the  name  elder  in  the  Scriptures."  I  find  the  office  in  the 
New  Testament  only,  and  not  always  meant  where  the  term  elder  is  used. 

As  to  whether  my  letters  to  Dr.  Crosby  and  others  were  appeals  for  aid,  I  have 


[10] 

said  all  I  care  to  on  this  subject.     But  whether  they  were  or  not  is  unimportant, 
and  can  have  no  bearing  on  the  subject  of  discussion. 

It  is  hardly  proper  to  class  Dr.  Hodge,  Dr.  Shedd,  myself  and  the  whole  West- 
minster Assembly  with  "the  devil  and  his  angels,"  and  somewhat  premature  to 
threaten  us,  thus  early  in  the  discussion,  with  their  doom.  By  what  law  of  sug- 
gestion did  the  doings  of  myself  and  friends  remind  you  of  Satan  and  his  per- 
petrations, and  his  dreadful  doom,  and  that  awful  poetry?  You  propose  to  bury 
us  "live  miles  deep,"  and  all  Presbyterian  churches  and  councils  are  to  be  piled  on 
us.  You  claim  that  you  are  able  to  hurl  twice  ten  thousand  "learned  and  loyal 
Presbyterians"  upon  each  of  my  "big  guns."  But  prophecy  and  history,  promise 
and  performance,  are  not  the  same.  The  way  you  make  pompous  threatenings 
reminds  me  of  a  certain  very  large  man  in  Old  Testament  times,  a  citizen  of  Gath, 
and  how  he  made  loud  proclamation,  in  swelling  words,  as  to  what  things  he  would 
do,  and  do  them  easily,  and  how  very  shortly  he  fell  in  a  duel  with  a  little  fellow 
whom  lie  held  in  very  low  estimation.  For  myself,  I  will  not  indulge  in  predictions 
of  victory  in  our  debate,  and  I  think  you  would  do  well,  also,  to  proceed  in  the 
discussion,  under  the  advice  of  Aliab  to  Benhadad — "Let  not  him  that  girdeth  on 
his  harness  boast  himself  as  he  that  putteth  it  off;"  especially  as  you  are  no  better 
armed  than  was  Balaam  when  he  said  to  his  troublesome  traveling  companion :  "I 
would  there  were  a  sword  in  my  hand,  for  now  would  I  kill  thee."  It  certainly 
would  have  been  premature,  at  that  time,  after  the  manner  you  are  doing  with  me, 
for  Balaam  to  have  made  a  picture  of  himself,  sword  in  hand  (the  very  sword  he 
wished  lie  had),  cutting  up  his  adversary,  as  Samuel  hewed  Agag  in  pieces.  The 
painting  would  not  have  been  any  more  historical  than  your  description  of  our 
contest  as  like  that  of  Michael  and  his  angels  with  the  dragon  and  his  angels.  Let 
us  wait  for  the  facts. 

I  shall  have  to  pass  without  answer  what  you  allege  as  to  Dr.  Hodge's  "  wrong- 
headedness,"  and  the  "prelatical"  trend  of  Princeton;  and  as  to  Dr.  Shedd's 
"spirituous  and  fiery  spume"  logic.  Our  readers  may  judge  between  you  and  these 
brethren  of  the  theological  seminaries. 

I  see  nothing  in  the  quotation  from  Dr.  John  Hall  to  disprove  my  position.  Sup- 
pose the  early  elders  did  sometimes  select  ministers  from  their  own  ranks,  what  of 
it?  We  are  not  debating  the  ancient  methods  of  choosing  ministers,  but  rather 
their  standing  and  functions  after  they  were  chosen  and  ordained.  When  the  elder, 
that  had  simply  ruled,  was  set  apart  to  labor  in  word  and  doctrine,  did  he  not  re- 
ceive higher  functions  than  he  had  before?  and  were  all  ministers  ruling  elders, 
before  their  ordination  as  ministers?  I  think  it  probable  that  for  the  first  few  years 
the  first  ministers  had  been  elders.  Young  men  must  have  been  scarce.  Dr.  Hall 
is  right,  as  I  suppose. 

As  to  the  intimation  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  lacked  backbone,  or  that 
"if  the  Scotch  army  had  been  at  their  backs,  the  elders  would,  from  that  day  to 
this,  have  had  all  that  we  claim  for  them,"  the  simple  facts  are :  The  Assembly 
was  called  to  determine  the  true  scriptural  doctrines  and  polity  of  the  Church.  It 
was  composed  of  the  best  scholars  of  the  age.  At  the  beginning  of  its  sessions  the 
majority  were  in  favor  of  Episcopacy.  The  deliberations  lasted  five  years,  and  the 
result,  so  far  as  church  polity  is  concerned,  is  embodied  in  our  Standards,  viz.:  That 
the  Lord  Jesus  is  King  and  Head  of  the  Church;  that  the  ministry  is  divinely  ap- 
pointed to  teach  and  to  rule ;  that  the  elders  have  ruling  functions  only,  and  that 
particular  congregations  are  united  in  a  bond,  not  only  of  union,  but  of  discipline. 

As  to  your  reference  to  Lane,  I  have  not  the  influence  in  the  Seminary  you  seem 
to  think,  and  if  I  had,  I  see  nothing  to  object  to  in  the  quotations  from  Drs.  Morris 
and  Humphrey.  I  hold  with  them,  and  the  whole  Church,  that  our  system  is  not 
jure  divino  in  all  its  details,  and  that  our  whole  polity  does  not  rest  on  such  scriptural 
demonstration  as  would  warrant  us  in  denying  Episcopal  or  Congregational  ordina- 
tion. I  do  believe,  however,  that  its  principles,  among  them  the  distinction  between 
ministers  and  ruling  elders,  are  thoroughly  scriptural.  If  you  were  an  Episcopalian 
or  a  Congregationalist,  my  argument  might  be  prefaced  by  some  reference  to  the 
polities  of  those  churches;  but,  arguing  with  a  Presbyterian  elder,  I  have  assumed 
that  you  accept  the  Presbyterian  system  and  believe,  as  I  do,  that  the  Presbyterian 
elder  is  a  scriptural  elder,  and  the  Presbyterian  minister  a  scriptural  minister;  though 
your  argument,  thus  far,  is  not  directed  so  much  in  favor  of  the  overture  as  against 


[17] 

fhe  Presbyterian  system.  It  may  be  that  I  can  pacify  you  in  regard  to  jure  dkino  Pres- 
byterian government,  by  pointing  out  that  our  Form  of  I  rovernment  itself  disclaims 
the  idea.  In  Chap.  I.,  Bee.  5,  it  says:  " There  are  truths  and  forms,  with  respect 
to  which  men  of  good  characters  and  principles  may  differ."  Tins  latitude  is  also 
provided  for  in  the  chapters  on  ordination.  As  to  doctrine,  avow  is  prescribed, 
declaring  that  the  *  krafession  of  Faith  is  according  to  the  Scriptures;  but  as  to  church 
order,  we  only  are  asked  to  say  that  we  "approve"  of  the  government  and  discipline 
of  the  Church.  The  jwe  divino  covers  doctrine,  but  not  church  polity.  It  is  very 
clear  that  you  are  wrong,  and  the  professors  of  Lane,  Union,  Princeton  and  Alle- 
gheny are  all  good  expounders  of  true  Presbyterian  order. 

You  speak  as  if  you  were  very  confident  when  you  denounce  the  terms  "clergy 
and  laity,"  as  used  by  Dr.  Hodge  and  others.  You  say:  "A  clergyman  [KUrikos) 
is  a  priest.  The  word  belongs  exclusively  to  priestly  hierarchies.  He  [Dr.  Hodge] 
speaks  of  'lay  representation,' another  prelatical  phrase,  which  is  equally  foreign  to 
Presbyterian  literature  and  thought."  Clergyman  is  derived  from  the  Greek  kleros, 
which  means  lot,  inheritance,  and  it  is  supposed  that  it  is  applied  to  ministers 
for  the  reason  that  their  living  is  provided  for.  They  are  clerks,  and  are  paid  by 
their  employers.  They  live  of  the  gospel,  either  by  the  bounty  of  the  state  or  of 
their  congregations;  which  is  not  true  of  ruling  elders,  who  live  by  their  trades  or 
professions,  and  are,  therefore,  called  laymen,  which  means,  of  the  people.  There 
are  many  terms  used  to  designate  ministers,  and  not  one  of  them  is  wicked  or 
heretical.  They  are  called  minister,  messenger,  shepherd,  bishop,  pastor,  rector, 
preacher,  parson,  doctor,  domine,  herald,  clergyman,  elder,  etc.  It  is  an  error  to 
say  that  clergy  and  laity  "are  foreign  to  Presbyterian  literature."  The  General 
Assembly  of  1829  (Minutes,  page  2b3)  says:  "The  word  of  God  and  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Presbyterian  Church  recognize  the  distinction  of  clergy  and  laity." 
So  it  would  appear  that  the  scare  you  are  sounding  concerning  these  terms,  is  a. 
false  alarm. 

Your  quotation  from  Rev.  George  Gillespie  at  the  close  of  your  article,  and  your 
remark  that  it  indicates  "  the  position  I  [you]  propose  to  maintain  and  defend," 
is  novel.  You  give  his  position,  viz.:  "Now,  elders  are  of  three  sorts — (1)  preach- 
ing elders  or  pastors,  (2)  teaching  elders  or  doctors,  (3)  ruling  elders."  According 
to  Webster,  sorts  are  orders  or  classes.  Have  you  forgotten  that  you  have  engaged 
to  prove  that  elders  are  of  one  sort  or  order  or  class?  If  you  succeed,  I  have 
nothing  to  do,  for  I  have  promised  to  prove  that  there  are  two.  I  shall  have  one 
sort  left.  Two  from  three  and  one  remains.  However,  there  is  no  profit  to  me  in 
your  new  enterprise,  as  I  have  already  given  my  argument  to  prove  that  ministers 
are  not  of  the  same  order  with  ruling  elders. 

The  application  of  your  closing  paragraph  is  not  clear.  "One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father,"  is  scriptural,  and  I  believe  it,  but  why  do  you 
add,  "One  order  in  God's  house"?  The  words  naturally  mean  that  the  order  and 
ritual  of  all  churches  should  be  alike;  they  can  not  mean  that  ministers  and  elders 
are  of  one  order,  although  this  is  the  subject  under  discussion.  If  they  have  any 
bearing  on  our  debate,  they  mean  that  ministers,  elders,  deacons  and  members  are 
of  "one  order,"  and  being  so,  the  Church  has  no  officers.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
various  positions  you  "propose  to  maintain  and  defend"  are  in  conflict:  (1)  There 
are  three  sorts  or  orders  of  elders,  not  to  mention  deacons;  (2)  all  elders  are  of  one 
order,  and  (3)  there  is  no  distinction  whatever  between  officers  and  members. 
This  may  be  "  sublime  simplicity,"  but  I  do  not  believe  it  is  "from  God,"  or  that 
it  is  "resistless." 

It  seems  to  me,  further,  that  your  extremely  rhetorical  sentences  are  made  to 
adorn  assertions  which,  when  dressed  in  plain  language,  fail  to  support  the  posi- 
tions you  have  set  yourself  to  "maintain  and  defend."  E.  R.  Monfort. 


X. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  December  15,  1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Dear  Dr.  Monfort: — The  deliverances  of  assemblies  and  definitions  of  the  Form 
of  Government  seem  to  be  your  Scripture.     I  will,  therefore,  give  further  reasons 


[  18] 


why  I  adhere  to  the  word  of  God  as  the  only  reliable  authority.  The  "Westminster 
Assembly  was  almost  unanimously  Calvinistic,  heuce  the  Confession  is  consistent 
with  itself  and  the  Scriptures.  But  there  were  three  parties  in  the  Assembly  on 
church-government — the  Presbyterians,  Prelatists  and  Independents.  The  Pres- 
byterians were  in  the  majority,  but  the  Prelatists  held  a  Gibraltar  in  the  king  and 
parliament — who  immediately  after  restoration  drove  Presbyterianism  out  of  Eng- 
land. A  powerful  influence  in  favor  of  compromise  was  the  desire  to  secure  Prot- 
estant uniformity,  in  order  that  it  might  present  a  united  front  against  the  common 
enemy,  and  to  this  necessity  the  Presbyterians  were  alive.  Hence,  while  they  would 
not  compromise  doctrine,  they  were  willing  to  go  to  the  verge  of  conscience  in  regard 
to  polity.  Put  their  sacrifices  resulted  in  nothing.  Kingly  and  prelatical  pride  and 
arrogance  would  not  submit  to  the  simplicity  of  pure  Christianity. 

The  compromise  of  the  eldership  is  spoken  of  by  Baillie  (Vol.  II.,  p.  110)  who 
says : 

Sundry  of  the  ablest  were  flat  against  the  institution  of  any  such  office  by  divine  right,  such  as 
Dr  Smith,  Dr  Temple,  .  .  .  and  many  more  beside  the  Independents.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
doubt  we  could  have  carried  it  by  tar  the  most  voices;  yet,  because  the  opposites  were  men  very 
considerable,  and  above  all,  gracious  little  Palmer,  we  agreed  upon  a  committee  to  satisfy,  if  it 
were  possible,  the  dissenters. 

Baillie  further  says  that : — 

All  of  these  were  even  willing  to  admit  of  elders  in  a  prudential  way  (i.  e.,  as  an  expedient 
human  arrangement),  but  this  seemed  to  us  most  dangerous  and  unhappy,  and  therefore  it  was 
peremptorily  rejected.  We  trust  to  carry  at  last  with  the  contentment  of  sundry  ones  opposite, 
and  the  silence  of  all  their  divine  and  scriptural  institution. 

He  then  expresses  a  hope  for  the  advance  of  the  Scotch  army,  "which  will  much 
assist  our  arguments."  The  compromise  effected  we  have  in  our  Form  of  Govern- 
ment— the  predicating  the  whole  Presbyterian  system  upon  one  word — and  that  not 
applicable — the  word  "governments."  No  such  makeshift  would  have  been  per- 
mitted had  that  famous  Assembly  been  untrammeled.  If  you  choose  to  quote  the 
result  of  that  compromise,  and  so  construe  it  as  to  disfranchise  ruling  elders,  I  am 
content.  It  certainly  will  not  have  influence  in  our  Church,  any  more  than  it  has 
had  with  other  great  Presbyterian  churches.  We  will  see,  as  we  proceed,  how  radi- 
cally erroneous  are  the  conclusions  you  arrive  at  upon  that  basis. 

The  reader  will  notice  that  Dr.  Monfort  three  times  slips  in  the  words  "order" 
and  "  orders" — "  the  order  of  the  ruling  elders."  The  word  is  hostile  both  to  the 
Scriptures  and  to  our  Standards,  and  yet  without  it  Dr.  Monfort's  theory  vanishes. 
The  Roman  apostasy  took  the  word  "  ordus,"  a  caste  or  rank  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
and,  putting  the  word  "holy"  before  it,  set  up  the  hierarchy  upon  it,  and  called 
the  rank  above  rank  "  holy  orders."  Christ  absolutely  forbids  it.  "  Call  no  man 
master — for  one  is  your  master,  even  Christ."  True  Presbyterianism  recognizes  no 
superiors  or  inferiors  in  God's  house.  He  that  would  rule  must  take  the  place  of  a 
servant  and  rule  by  love.     There  are  to  be  no  lords  over  God's  heritage. 

The  next  fundamental  error  in  Dr.  Monfort's  theory  is,  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  a  limited  monarchy,  in  which  there  are  two  coordinate  and  often  opposing  inter- 
ests, each  of  equal  authority.  One  of  these  is  God,  and  he  is  represented  in  the 
kingdom  by  the  ministry.  The  other  is  the  people,  and  they  are  defended  against 
the  encroachments  of  the  divine  Sovereign  by  the  ruling  elders!  Ridiculous  as  it 
is  when  baldly  stated,  that  is  his  idea  of  the  church!  "This  official  service,"  he 
says,  "the  minister  performs,  not  as  the  representative  of  the  people,  but  of  God." 
Ruling  elders,  he  insists,  are  not  called  of  God.  "Their  call  is  of  the  people." 
So  God  must  make  compromises  with  the  people,  and  the  people  make  concessions 
to  God  !  If  such  were  a  true  interpretation  of  our  "Form  of  Government,"  our 
fathers  made  a  worse  compromise  than  they  knew;  but  it  is  not  true. 

Christ  is  the  only  sovereign.  Obedience  to  him  is  the  sole  object  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church.  Elders,  whether  preaching,  teaching  or  presiding,  "must  seek 
the  word  from  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  and  declare  what  they  have  received  of  him." 
If  any  of  them  be  not  called  of  Christ  into  his  service,  and  do  not  represent  him 
alone,  they  are  not  of  his  fold.  Effectual  calling  is  Christ's  call  to  the  returning 
sinner  and  to  the  ascending  saint,  and  to  all  in  his  kingdom  between.  He  who 
comes  into  Christ's  kingdom  can  only  come  on  God's  effectual  call ;  much  more  he 
who  assumes  in  Christ's  name  any  official  service,  humble  or  exalted,  in  Christ's 
house.     The  opposite  doctrine  is  so  monstrous  that  Dr.  Monfort  will  not  adhere  to 


[19] 

it.     The  Church  very  properly  exercises  greater  care  in  ascertaining  the  fact  of 
God's  call  to  one  who  gives  his  whole  time  to  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  doctrine, 

than  to  one  who  docs  not:   hut  she  gives  too  little  care  in  seeking  for  the  will  of  the 
Spirit  in  regard  to  those  who  perform  leas  important  labor. 

Dr.  Monfort'a  last  general  error  in  this  article  is  in  insisting  that  the  moderator's 
office  involves  ••  ministerial  functions."  The  office  of  the  moderator  is  a  necessary 
ele.uent  in  the  divine  plan  of  church  procedure  and  work:  hut  it  is  -imply  a  chair- 
manship. I  shall  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  word  translated  "rule" — 
"ciders  who  rule  well" — means  to  preside,  to  be  set  over.  The  word  exactly  de- 
scribes the  position  of  a  presiding  officer.  He,  then,  who  hedges  abont  the  duty  or  * 
privilege  01  presiding  with  requirements  which  will  exclude  from  it  a  majority  of 
Christ's  presiding  officers,  is  opposing  Christ's  authority. 

As  prejudice  has  arisen  out  of  misapprehension,  permit  me  to  say  that  no  intelli- 
gent elder  desires  to  assume  ministerial  functions,  without  obtaining  the  right  to 
their  exercise  through  the  lawful  channel,  the  presbytery.  If  <  rod  by  his  Spirit 
and  providence  should  seem  to  one  of  us  to  call  him  to  other  ministerial  work  than 
that  now  assigned  him,  it  would  he  for  the  authority  in  God's  house  to  decide  the 
question  for  him.  Situations  are  supposable  in  which  it  would  he  an  elder's  duty 
to  perform  the  higher  duties,  but  exceptions  indicate  no  law.  Solomon  dedicated 
the  temple.  John  Knox,  John  Calvin  and  Andrew  Melville  were  not  ordained 
ministers — but  these  exceptions  make  for  nothing  against  the  rule. 

Moses  was  moderator  of  the  general  assembly  for  forty  years.  He  was  no  king 
«r  priest,  nor  even  a  preacher,  like  Noah.  He  was  a  prophet;  hut  so  was  Amos  the 
humble  shepherd,  and  so  were  other  humble  men  and  women.  He  must  have  held 
the  p  isition  of  an  elder,  unless  his  position  -was  entirely  exceptional.  The  judges — 
nearly  all  the  moderators  under  the  theocracy  were  elders — Jephtha,  Barak,  Gideon, 
Eli  and  Samuel  were  priest-moderators. 

What  is  an  elder?  The  primitive  elder  was  the  spiritual  and  civil  head  of  his 
family  and  tribe,  and  when  he  died  he  was  worshiped  as  a  god.  This  ancient  office 
was  adopted  into  the  divine  economy  and  sanctified.  The  Hebrew  elder  performed 
the  most  striking  of  all  the  Messianic  rites,  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  pas- 
chal lamb  (Ex.  xii.  22),  and  this  he  continued  to  do  till  Christ  died.  He  was  t  > 
teach  the  meaning  of  the  rite  (verse  27).  The  office  was  sanctified  and  the  Spirit  of 
God  breathed  into  it,  so  that  elders  became  prophets  and  teachers  as  well  as  rulers. 

"And  the  Lord  came  down  in  a  cloud,  and  spake  unto  him,  and  took  of  the  spirit  thru  was 
upon  him,  and  gave  it  unto  the  seventy  elders  ;  and  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  spirit  rested  upon 
them,  they  prophesied,  and  did  not  cease"  (Num.  xi   25). 

They  saw  God's  glory  in  the  mount  (Dent.  v.  23).  The  people  were  to  go  to  them 
to  learn  of  God's  dealings  with  men  (xxxii.  7).  Job  was  an  elder.  He  periormed 
the  priestly  office  for  his  own  household,  but  not  for  others.  But  I  need  not  dwell 
on  a  truth  which  will  not  be  disputed — that  the  elders  held  their  office  till  Christ 
came,  and  were  ruling  the  synagogues  in  which  Christ  preached.  It  is  hardly  worth 
while  here  to  negative  a  claim  made  by  prelatists  that  these  elders  were  civil  officers. 
The  Hebrew  economy  was  a  theocracy  until  the  time  of  Saul,  and  the  civil  was 
svallowed  up  in  the  spiritual.  Civil  officers  are  not,  at  their  inauguration,  so  endued 
with  the  Spirit  of  God  that  they  prophesy,  and  that  without  ceasing.  The  elders, 
at  Christ's  advent,  were  wholly  occupied  with  religious  government  and  instruction. 

"And  after  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  sent  unto 
them,  saying:  Ye  men  and  brethren,  if  ye  have  any  word  of  exhortation  to  the  people,  say  on" 
(Acts  xiii.  15). 

"  For  Moses  of  old  times  hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  syna- 
gogues every  Sabbath-day  "  (Acts  xv.  21). 

The  civil  rule  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Romans.  It  is  admitted  that  the  elders 
ordained  in  every  city  of  the  Gentiles  in  which  a  Christian  church  was  estahl; 
■were  these  same  elders  charged  with  the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  people.  Out  of  the 
one  office  came  all  the  spiritual  ministries  of  the  kingdom.  The  priestly  office,  having 
been  fulfilled  in  Christ,  disappeared  from  among  men.  The  eldership  alone  remained, 
and  will  remain  when  all  that  is  temporal  shall  have  passed  away.     (Rev.  iv.  4.) 

Dr.  Monfort  says  of  the  scriptural  elders:  "They  were  rulers,  and  only  rulers. 
They  had  no  higher  function  or  authority."  These  were  the  presbuteroi,  the  pres- 
byters, the  bishops.  It  really  is  not  worth  while  to  contradict  so  preposterous  a 
statement.     Dr.  Monfort  did  not  mean  to  say  that. 


[20] 

Dr.  Monfort  admits  that  our  Presbyterian  elders  are  occupying  this  ancient  and 
divinely-appointed  office,  but  lie  is  unwilling  that  they  shall  be  trusted  with  the  full 
exercise  of  its  functions.  They  have,  he  says,  equal  authority,  but  they  shall  not 
exercise  it  except  in  the  most  subordinate  of  possible  ways.  "  I  am  not  a  hierarch- 
ist,"  he  says,  and  when  we  ask  him  what  else  his  superior  and  inferior  ranks  of  spir- 
itual officers  are,  he  answers:  "God  makes  the  ministers,  but  the  peaple  [it  is  well 
he  did  not  say  the  devil]  make  the  elders."  That  does  not  help  the  matter  at  all. 
There  stands  his  hierarchy  all  the  same,  no  matter  where  he  says  it  came  from. 
I  lis  system  is  the  hierarchy  which  never  yet  failed  to  foster  human  pride,  to  cor- 
rupt the  Church  and  dishonor  Christ's  spiritual  temple.  As  I  have  already  shown, 
Dr.  Monfort's  theory  is  destructive  in  every  direction.  I  will  in  due  time  prove 
that  this  pernicious  hierarchical  idea  first  came  into  the  Church  long  after  the  apos- 
tolic church  had  gone  to  its  reward.     Now  let  us  look  at  the  texts  adduced. 

Mever,  spoken  of  by  Charles  Hodge  as  the  "prince  of  exegetes,"  on  1  Cor.  xii. 
28  says: 

"Governments"  is  rightly  understood  by  most  commentators  according  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  of  the  work  of  the  presbyters  (bishops).  It  refers  to  their  functions  of  rule  and  adminis- 
tration in  virtue  of  which  they  were  gubernatores  ecclesite. 

Alford  says : 

"  Governments"— a  higher  department,  that  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  the  direction  of  the  vari- 
ous churches. 

Hooker  warns  us — 

Not  to  surmise  incompatible  offices  where  nothing  is  meant  but  sundry  graces,  gifts  and  abilities, 
which  Christ  bestowed. 

Thus  three  leading  exegetes  show  us  what  is  evident  on  the  face  of  the  text,  that 
"governments"  does  not  refer  to  an  office,  but  to  a  function — a  function  now,  as. 
then,  exercised  by  teaching  elders  and  ruling  elders  equally.  The  opposite  con- 
struction not  only  has  no  reason  in  it,  but  it  contradicts  the  existing  facts.  The 
"governments"  are  not  manned  by  the  ruling  elders  exclusively.  What  I  am  now 
fighting  for  is,  that  they  shall  be  recognized  as  entitled  to  an  equal  share  in  them. 

Romans  xii.  8:  "He  that  ruleth  with  diligence."  Dr.  Monfort  says  this  refers 
to  ruling  elders.  The  word  pro istemenas,  translated  ruleth,  literally  means  presides. 
If  it  refers  to  ruling  elders,  it  plainly  indicates  them  as  the  material  for  moderators. 
If  his  exposition  be  correct,  then  the  elders  who  preach  are  excluded  from  presid- 
ing or  ruling.  An  enumeration  of  offices  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  context.  The 
apostle  is  here,  according  to  Alford,  exhorting  each  member  to  keep  its  true  place, 
and  work  without  boasting  against  another. 

When  he  says,  '"He  that  ruleth  with  diligence,"  he  implies  that  he  who  is  by  God  set  over 
'  others,  be  they  members  of  the  church  or  his  own  household,  must  not  allow  himself  to  forget  his. 
responsibility,  and  take  his  duty  indolently  and  easily,  but  must  proisiasthai  spondias,  making  it 
a  serious  matter  of  continual  diligence. 

And  now  for  the  great  crucial  text,  1  Tim.  v.  17:  "Let  the  elders  that  rule  well 
be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  word  and  doc- 
trine." No  exposition  can  make  the  truth  plainer  that  here  is  one  office  having 
two"  functions.     In  regard  to  this,  Meyer  says: 

The  indications  of  verse  17  are,  that  there  were  presbyters  who,  in  addition  to  the  work  of  pre- 
siding, devoted  themselves  to  teaching  and  preaching.  But  that  there  was  a  marked  division  be- 
tween two  classes  of  elders— ruling  and  teaching  elders—  is  neither  stated  nor  rendered  probable 
by  the  verse. 

Dr.  Monfort  has  not  quoted,  and  he  can  not  quote,  a  text  which,  either  on  the 
face  of  it,  or  under  critical  exegesis,  gives  a  shadow  of  foundation  to  his  theory 
of  two  "orders"  of  spiritual  offices.  Much  less  has  he  given  the  shadow  of  a  shade 
of  scriptural  reason  why  the  "elders  who  rule  well"  should  be  excluded  from  rul- 
ing, and  be  disfranchised  and  put  on  the  tails  of  committees.  I  conclude  by  calling 
especial  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  theory  and  the  prevalent  practice  render  that 
just  and  beautiful  commendation  of  God — "especially  those  who  labor  in  word  and 
doctrine" — an  impracticable  nullity.  We  are  not  permitted  to' account  them  especially 
worthy  of  double  honor.  Give  us  liberty,  and  we  will  show  voluntarily  that  we 
account  them  worthy.  As  it  is,  we  have  no  choice.  The  free-will  offering  is 
wrested  from  our  nands  by  rude  compulsion,  and  all  the  sweetness  is  taken  out  of 
it.     What  Gud  intended  is  rendered  impossible.  Wm.  C.  Gray. 


[21] 


XI. 

"Hftrald  and  Presbyter,"  December  15,  1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Dr.  W.  C.  Gray,  Editor  of  the  Interior : — Your  long  article  in  reply  to  my  argument 
in  favor  of  our  tirst  proposition  requires  but  a  short  response.  Your  quotation  from 
Bailiie  confirms  what  I  saiil  of  the  Westminster  divines.  Prelacy  was  strongest  :it 
Cist;  compromise  began  to  appear;  Presbyterians  resisted ;  Bailiie  said:  "We  trust 
to  carry  OUT  view  at  last;"  and  they  succeeded.  Although  the  Standards  agreed 
upon  were  not  adopted  in  England,  the  book  was  accepted  in  Scotland  and  Ire- 
land, and  we  have  it  in  our  Church.  Bailiie  and  you  and  I  are  agreed.  There  was 
no  compromise. 

Your  objection  to  my  use  of  the  term  "orders"  is  hardly  worthy  of  notice. 
Order  follows  ordination  to  office.  If  the  office  and  ordination  differ,  the  order 
differs,  as  in  the  case  of  ruling  elders  and  ministers.  We  can  not  give  up  words 
because  prelatists  use  them  We  can  not  give  up  to  them  such  terms  as  office, 
order,  ordination,  baptism,  pardon,  or  any  word  we  need  to  use.  The  Bible  tells 
of  "the  high  priests  and  priests  of  the  second  order;"  also  of  the  order  of  Aaron 
and  Melchisedek.     "Order"  is  as  good  a  word  as  "sorts,"  which  you  adopt. 

I  knew  my  reference  to  a  "call  to  the  ministry"  would  puzzle  you.  You  have 
practically  denied  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  call  to  the  ministry,  by  spreading 
it  out  equally  and  very  thin  alike  over  ministers,  elders  and  private  members.  If 
you  have  the  same  call  with  your  pastor,  why  don't  you  preach?  Bro.  Brown  says 
with  Paul:  "Woe  is  me  if  I  preach  not  the  gospel;"  but  when  you  were  ordained 
you  at  once  started  on  a  voyage  to  Tarshish.  Your  excuse  is  that  you  must  wait  for 
the  presbytery  to  send  you.  Your  authority  is  given  by  your  ordination  ;  and,  upon 
your  theory,  you  should  not  "neglect  the  gift  that  is  within  thee." 

You  say  the  word  "rule"  means  "preside."  Preside  over  whom?  Should 
each  elder  preside  all  the  time  over  the  session?  or,  as  a  session,  preside  over  or 
rule  the  people?     The  idea  of  moderatorship  is  not  in  the  word. 

What  you  say  about  "limited  monarchy,"  "compromise,"  etc.,  is  a  caricature 
of  my  argument.  The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  our  Form  of  Government 
is  that  ruling  elders  are  the  representatives  of  the  people,  and  that  ministers  are 
called  of  God  to  dispense,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  holy  ordinances.  We  should 
avoid  saying  anything  that  may  seem  to  depreciate  the  work  of  the  ministry.  Min- 
isters are  the  embassadors  of  Christ. 

Your  knowledge  of  Moses  is  at  fault.  He  was  the  ruler  of  Israel,  though  not 
called  King  or  Sultan  or  Czar.  He  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  ordered  and 
supervised  the  whole  scheme  of  the  priesthood.  He  was  a  prophet,  which  includes 
teaching  and  preaching.  He  was  a  type  of  Christ  (Deut.  xviii.  15),  the  great 
Prophet,  Priest  and  King  of  the  Church.  He  was  a  very  suitable  man  for  modera- 
tor, though  I  do  not  know  that  he  ever  presided  over  a  deliberative  body.  He  had 
the  functions  if  they  had  been  needed  at  any  time. 

You  say  Samuel  was  a  "priest  moderator."  I  do  not  know  that  he  was  any 
"sort"  of  a  moderator;  but  if  so,  he  must  have  been  a  prophet  moderator,  which 
is  the  proper  order  for  the  honor.  I  know  nothing  about  Barak,  except  that  he 
was  an  employe1  of  Deborah  the  prophetess,  who  "judged  Israel  at  that  time." 
She  must  have  been  the  moderator,  if  there  was  any.  You  can  not  prove  by  me 
that  Jephtha  or  Gideon  or  any  of  the  Old  Testament  people  were  moderators.  Is 
this  what  you  meant  by  "the  Scripture  argument"  upon  which  you  have  been 
insisting? 

What  profit  is  it  to  you  to  say  that  the  Hebrew  elders  before  the  Exodus 
''sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb"?  So  did  every  head  of  every  family. 
Mosss  called  the  elders  and  gave  the  commandment,  and  "the  children  of  Israel 
did  as  commanded."     (Ex.  xii.  28). 

Your  quotations  from  Meyer,  Alford  and  Hooker  I  agree  with,  except  the  last 
from  Meyer.  I  hold  that  ministers  and  ruling  elders  exercise  the  same  functions 
i  1  ruling  (and  these  are  the  functions  which  they  have  in  common);  and  so  when 
ministers  labor  in  word  and  doctrine,  they  exercise  functions  that  do  not  belong  to 
ruling    elders.     Different  functions  and  different  names  make  different  orders  or 


L  22  j 

offices.     In  exercising  rulership,  though  of  different  orders,  there  is  no  superiority" 
over  one  another.     Your  exegetes  are  sound. 

When  Meyer  says  1  Tim.  v.  17  does  not  state  or  make  probable  two  classes  of 
elders,  I  may  reply  that,  while  he  and  some  others  may  hold  this  view,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  which  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, lias  been  maintained  by  all  Presbyterian  churches,  viz.:  "This  office  (ruling 
elder)  has  been  understood  by  a  great  part  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  Church  to 
be  designated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  title  of  governments,  and  of  those  who 
rule  well,  but  do  not  labor  in  word  and  doctrine."  For  over  three  hundred  years- 
this  text  lias  been  interpreted  in  the  same  way. 

The  theory,  that  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  elders  are  the  same,  is  an 
error.  The  name  is  the  same,  for  there  was  no  other  word  in  general  use  to  indi- 
cate the  office  of  ruling.  At  first  all  rulers  were  old  men,  and  the  word  came  into 
general  use  even  where  rulers  were  young  men,  and  to  this  day  we  have  senators, 
aldermen,  sheiks,  of  the  same  derivation,  meaning  rulers,  though  not  aged  persons. 
Elders  in  Old  Testament  times  had  various  functions.  They  had  political  power  at 
first  in  their  tribes.  During  the  Exodus  they  were  associates  of  Moses,  and  so  to  a. 
great  extent  under  the  judges  and  kings,  having  more  local  power  as  their  tribes 
were  together.  In  the  Captivity,  and  after  their  return  to  Jerusalem,  their  rule 
was  partial  and  often  impossible,  because  the  theocracy  was  gone  and  they  were  in 
subjection  to  Gentile  rule.  The  synagogue  was  not  a  divine  institution,  but  only  a 
wise  expedient  to  preserve  what  was  Jewish.  When  Christ  came,  the  leaders  of 
the  synagogue  were  his  greatest  enemies;  the  chief  priests  and  elders  putting  him 
at  last  to  death,  and  afterward  persecuting  his  disciples  wherever  they  went.  The 
New  Testament  Church,  though  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish  Church,  did  not  come 
from  the  Jewish  synagogue,  though  like  it  in  some  respects.  It  came  from  Christ 
incarnate,  who  said,  "All  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given  to  me";  who 
appointed  his  twelve  apostles  his  witnesses  and  representatives,  and  promised  them, 
"Whatsoever  you  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven;"  "On  this  rock  1  will 
build  my  Church;"  "Begin  at  Jerusalem,  and  go  into  all  the  world  and  teach  and 
baptize."  After  the  ascension  the  apostles  and  disciples  met  and  chose  Matthias, 
in  place  of  Judas,  "to  take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship."  Then  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  they  began  to  preach  and  baptize  and  observe  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Then  the  visible  organization  of  the  Christian  Church  began.  What  ecclesiastical 
meetings  they  had,  whether  elders  were  chosen  by  the  apostles  or  others,  what 
records  they  kept,  we  know  not.  We  do  know,  however,  that  soon  a  pastoral  letter 
was  sent  "by  the  apostles  and  elders"  from  Jerusalem  to  the  church  at  Antioch. 
And  we  know,  moreover,  that  shortly  after  the  apostles  called  the  disciples  together 
and  told  them  to  "look  out  from  among  them  seven  men,  whom  we  may  appoint" 
as  deacons.  Having  no  record  of  the  election  of  the  first  elders,  we  have  here  a 
precedent  in  favor  of  their  election  by  the  people  and  as  their  representatives. 
Then,  in  planting  churches  outside  of  Jerusalem,  elders  were  ordained  in  every 
church.  It  may  be  said  the  Christian  Church  was  modeled  after  the  synagogue. 
This  is,  however,  not  entirely  so.  There  never  was  an  elder  before  Christ,  whose 
rulership  was  confined  to  spiritual  things.  The  similarity  is  only  or  chiefly  in 
name.  Besides  this,  the  care  of  temporal  things,  in  the  interest  of  the  Church, 
was  in  a  few  days  taken  from  the  ministry  and  eldership,  and  given  to  the  new 
office  of  deacons,  which  had  no  place  in  the  Jewish  economy.  I  do  not  believe 
you  will  be  able  to  produce  a  single  fact  in  the  history  of  Old  Testament  elders  that 
can  in  the  slightest  degree  bear  upon  the  question  of  the  rights  of  elders  to  the 
moderatorship  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  spiritual  leader  of  the  Jewish  Com- 
monwealth was  the  prophet.  He  was  teacher  and  preacher.  He  was  above  the 
priesthood  and  eldership,  or  rulership.  In  so  far  as  the  outward  form  of  the 
organization  of  the  Christian  Church  grows  out  of  the  Jewish,  or  resembles  it  in 
offices  and  administration,  ministers  are  the  successors  of  the  prophets,  and  it  is 
also  true,  that  in  so  far  as  there  is  anything  in  the  Church,  since  the  coming  of 
Christ,  that  corresponds  with  the  priesthood  and  its  dispensation  of  spiritual  bless- 
ings, it  belongs  to  the  Christian  ministry,  as  it  is  set  apart  to  administer  sealing 
ordinances  in  the  use  of  the  water  of  baptism,  the  wine  and  bread  of  the  New 
Testament  Passover,  and  the  consecrating  prayer  and  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordina- 
tion.    All  this  Christ  conferred  upon  his  apostles  with  the  authority  of  rulership 


[  23  ] 

ami  the  duty  of  transmitting  the  same  to  faithful  men.  In  conjunction  with  them 
ruling  elders  axe  chosen  to  exercise  only  government  and  discipline,  and  us  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people. 

Having  s;iid  all  that  is  necessary  in  answer  to  your  reply  to  my  argument  in 
favor  of  our  tirst  proposition,  I  will  give  my  views  of  the  second,  viz.: 

[t  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  overtures  now  before  the  Church  concerning  the  eligibility  of 
ruling  elders  to  the  moderatorship. 

The   first  overture,   which  is  all  that  the  friends  of   the  measure   desire  to  see 

adopted,  (note  "J)  is  as  follows  : 

Shall  Chap.  XIX.,  Sec.  2,  be  amended  by  adding  the  following :  "In  case  the  moderator  of  any 
judicatory  above  the  church  session  be  a  ruling  elder,  he  may  open  the  next  meeting  with  an 
address,  but  any  acts  appropriate  only  to  an  ordained  minister  of  the  gospel  shall  be  performed 
by  a  minister  appointed  by  such  ruling  elder"  ? 

I  will  oppose  this  overture  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  .Because  our  Form  of  Government  (Chap.  IV.,  Sec.  3)  provides  that  the  pastor 
or  some  other  minister  shall  always  be  the  moderator  of  the  session,  unless  it  is 
highly  inconvenient  (which  provision  it  is  not  proposed  to  change  by  the  adoption  of 
the  present  overtures),  which  makes  it  highly  improper,  for  the  reason  that  a  minis- 
ter as  moderator  is  more  necessary  in  the  higher  judicatories,  where  the  business  is 
much  more  important  and  difficult,  and  where  ministers  are  always  present  to  serve 
as  moderators. 

2.  Because  a  ruling  elder  has  not  the  functions  to  do  the  whole  work  of  a  mod- 
erator in  a  presbytery  or  higher  court.  He  can  not  preside  and  "exercise  the  whole 
power  of  the  presbytery"  by  laying  on  hands,  making  the  ordaining  prayer  at  the 
ordination  of  a  minister,  administering  a  sentence  of  suspension,  or  pronouncing 
the  apjstolic  benediction. 

3.  Hecause  if  the  overtures  are  adopted,  and  ministers  have  to  take  the  place  of 
the  el'Jer-moderator  "to  perform  any  acts  appropriate  only  to  an  ordained  minister 
of  the  gospel,"  there  will  be  difference  of  opinion  and  controversy,  delay  and  con- 
fusion, in  deciding  what  a  ruling  elder  can  do  or  can  not  do. 

'i.  Because  if  ever  the  office  of  the  ministry  and  official  preaching  should  be  spe- 
ciaily  recognized  and  its  benefits  enjoyed,  it  is  in  the  meetings  of  our  judicatories. 
Oa  this  subject  the  editor  of  the  Baltimore  Presbyterian  wisely  says : 

Our  Form  of  Government  and  usage,  as  well  as  propriety  and  a  full  regard  to  the  honor  of  our 
holy  religion,  say  that  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church  should  be  opened  religiously  and 
authoritatively,  not  with  a  mere  essay  or  speech,  but  with  a  sermon,  or  in  a  way  that  shows  Christ 
as  its  Head  and  King.  This  procedure  lends  dignity,  grace,  force  and  solemnity  to  the  occasion, 
and  also  imparts  to  it  a  greater  air  of  spirituality  and  sacredness.  We  would  be  sorry  to  see  any 
innovation  in  this  respect  at  the  convenings  of  our  highest  ecclesiastical  judicatory. 

5.  Because  the  proposed  change  is  based  upon  the  fundamental  error  that  the 
order  and  functions  of  ministers  and  elders  are  the  same,  and,  to  make  our  polity 
consistent,  other  changes  equally  erroneous  will  be  called  for,  such  as  (1)  the  right 
of  elders  to  administer  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  lay  on  hands  in  the 
ordination  of  ministers.  Both  of  our  Assemblies,  while  separate,  have  denied  this; 
and  (2)  the  transfer  of  the  membership  and  ordination  of  the  eldership  to  the  pres- 
bytery, so  as  to  have  the  equality  of  the  orders  recognized,  and  (3)  this  must  result 
in  nullifying  our  doctrine  of  a  special  call  to  the  ministry,  or  in  requiring  such  a 
call  in  the  case  of  elders,  either  of  which  would  subvert  our  system ;  and  (4)  it 
would  gradually  undermine  our  theory  and  practice  in  favor  of  an  educated  min- 
istry. 

6.  Because  it  will  be  injurious  in  its  bearings  upon  the  eldership  ;  (1)  it  will  be 
raising  the  standard  of  qualifications  for  the  eldership,  which  will  discourage  many 
from  accepting  the  office,  and  may  lead  many  to  resign;  (21  as  some  will  be  regarded 
as  qualified  for  the  moderatorship  and  others  not,  there  will  be  invidious  distinctions 
and  a  sense  of  humiliation  on  the  part  of  some. 

7.  Because  it  will  inevitably  lead  to  constant  jealousy  for  the  rights  of  the  two 
classes  of  offices,  and  their  keeping  up  of  the  balance  of  honor  and  power  between 
them,  one  form  of  which  will  be  alternating  in  the  chair  of  moderator. 

8.  Because  it  opens  the  door  and  invites  competition  and  jealousy  between  min- 
isters and  elders,  which  must  be  a  constant  embarrassment  to  ministers  who  can  not 
forget  their  higher  functions,  their  special  training  and  their  devotion  to  the  min- 


[24] 

istry  as  a  profession  demanding  their  whole  time,  but  must  be  constantly  watching 
lost  they  be  thought  to  be  doing  something  in  violation  of  the  new  equality.  Most 
ministers  would  prefer  independency  or  prelacy  to  the  proposed  regime. 

9.  Because  the  judicatories  of  the  Church  are  (1)  not  ordinary  assemblies,  but 
courts  of  Jesus  Christ,  gathered  by  his  authority  and  in  his  name ;  (2)  the  work  to 
be  done  is  the  most  difficult  and  important  that  has  been  committed  to  the  Church; 
(.'li  moderators  in  conducting  and  giving  official  authority  to  proceedings  need  the 
highest  qualitications  and  experience;  (4)  ministers  have  had  long  professional 
training,  and  give  their  whole  time  to  the  ministry,  and  thus  constantly  add  to  their 
knowledge  and  litness  for  their  work;  (5)  elders  do  not  serve  the  Church  as  a  pro- 
fession, and  are  not  trained  as  a  class  as  ministers  are;  therefore,  the  eligibility  to 
the  moderatorship  should  be  confined  to  the  ministry.  E.  R.  Monfort. 


XII. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"   December  22,  1S86. 

ELDER-MOD  ERATORSHIP. 

DR.  GRAY'S  THIRD  ARTICLE. 

Dear  Dr.  Monfort: — I  must  have  been  "extremely  rhetorical,"  if  I  gave  you  occa- 
sion to  suppose  that  I  classed  you  with  the  devil.  No,  sir,  you  are  a  young  angel. 
I  was  trying  to  put  in  the  gentlest  way  possible  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
England  does  not  agree  with  your  interpretations.  She  elected  Dr.  Collingwood 
Bruce,  a  ruling  elder,  who  was  not  a  minister,  to  her  chief  moderatorship.  The 
Scotch  Assembly  elected  Mr.  George  Buchanan,  a  ruling  elder,  who  was  not  a  min- 
ister, to  her  moderatorship.  Dr.  J.  Monro  Gibson,  of  London,  informs  me  that 
some  time  ago  the  moderatorship  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  was  offered  by 
influential  men  to  Hon.  Murray  Dunlap,  M.  P.  for  Greenock,  but  he  could  not 
accept.  The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  last  year  adopted  an  overture  similar 
to  the  one  now  before  our  Church.  The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  elects 
elder-moderators.  All  these  have  the  Assembly's  Form  of  Government — identical 
with  our  own.  All  three  of  our  Pan-Presbyterian  councils  have  elected  elder-mod- 
erators. Among  these  were  Supreme  Judge  Strong,  Hon.  Horace  Maynard,  Hon. 
Samuel  Sloan,  and  a  number  of  others.  Our  last  General  Assembly  submitted  the 
pending  overtures  by  a  vote  almost  unanimous.  A  score  or  two  of  our  presbyteries 
have  elected  elder-moderators.  Now  I  did  not  intend  to  threaten  or  boast.  I  only 
meant  to  say  that  these  great  churches  and  councils  utterly  overwhelm  your  indi- 
vidual authorities. 

To  say  a  thing  is  "thoroughly  scriptural"  and  yet  not  by  divine  law,  as  you  do, 
is  bald  absurdity,  unless  the  Scriptures  are  false.  Dr.  Humphrey  said  that  "No 
present  system  of  church  government  or  polity  can  claim  to  be  jure  divino — by 
divine  law."  You  indorse  the  statement  and  explain  by  saying,  "The  jure  divino 
covers  doctrine,  not  church  polity."  And  yet  you  have  based  three-fourths  of  your 
argument  on  that  which  you  put  down  as  a  human  invention.  So  far  from  agreeing 
to  that,  I  believe  that  the  vital  principle  of  Presbyterian  polity  is  as  divine,  and  as 
clearly  defined  in  Scripture,  as  the  doctrine.  That  divine  principle  of  church  gov- 
ernment is  a  government  of  equal  presbyters,  meeting  on  equal  terms  in  local  and 
general  presbyteries.  The  details  are  involved  in  the  principle  as  much  as  a  con- 
clusion is  involved  in  its  premises.  In  order  to  get  rid  of  this  God-ordained  prin- 
ciple, and  provide  for  a  pride-fostering  hierarchy,  you  and  yours  plunge  into  a 
jumble  of  absurdities.  First,  with  Dr.  Humphrey  and  others,  you  deny  that  any 
form  of  church  government  is  by  divine  law.  Then  you  quote  what  you  regard  as 
human  inventions  as  conscience-binding  authority.  Then  yousay  they  are  by 
scriptural  law,  but  not  by  divine  law.  Then  you  affirm  three  spiritual  orders,  min- 
isters, elders  and  deacons — which  is  stark  popery — and  then  deny  that  these 
superior  and  inferior  orders  are  a  hierarchy !  You  must  have  a  peculiar  idea  of 
Presbyterian  common  sense! 

It  is  this  miserable  inconsistency  that  has  bred  general  skepticism  in  regard  to  the 
divine  principles  of  government — and  has  paralyzed  our  army  of  twenty  thousand 
elders,  and  inflicted  infinite  loss  upon  the  Church. 


[  25  ] 

1  say  that  the  phrase  "clergy  and  laity"  is  distinctively  prelatical,  and  that  the 
phrase  "minister  and  people"  is  distinctively  non-prclaucal.     You  deny  it.     An 

Irishman  with  a  rich  brogue  on  his  tongue  might  as  well  deny  his  nativity.  An. 
assembly  used  it!  It  is  one  of  the  evidences  of  G-od's  care  over  his  Church,  that  BO 
little  of  the  ignorance,  and  so  few  of  the  blunders  of  resolution  eoneocters,  get  upon 
the  minutes.     To  keep  them  all  out  would  require  an  eternal  miracle. 

Dr.  Gillespie  could  not  have  more  clearly  asserted  the  doctrine  of  the  Presby- 
terians of  Westminster  Assembly,  of  the  oneness  of  the  elders,  and  the  diversity  of 
their  employment,  than  lie  did.  They  compromised,  and  yet,  after  all,  they  left 
hierarchists  only  inferential  standing-room.  If  that  Scotch  army,  the  sons  of  Jenny 
Geddes,  had  been  at  their  backs,  that  little  would  have  been  cleared  away. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  eldership  was  the  primitive  type  of  spiritual  rule; 
that  when  the  office  was  consecrated  and  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  it,  the 
elders  immediately  began  to  prophesy,  "and  that  continually" — to  teach  and  exhort 
the  people.  This  shows  what  God  intended  them  to  do,  because  they  did  it  under 
Ids  direct  influence.  The  word  "continually"  is  shown  to  have  ages-long  signifi- 
cance, because  the  apostle  James  said  they  "preached  Moses" — that  is,  the  law — in 
the  synagogues  through  all  preceding  ages.  I  have  shown  that  they  were  ruling  and 
teaching  in  the  synagogues  when  Christ  came;  that  on  accepting  Christ  they  con- 
tinued in  one  unbroken  succession  to  rule  and  teach  in  the  churches,  and  they  thus 
form  the  golden  chain  of  organic  continuity  in  God's  Church  from  Enoch  through 
Moses  and  Christ  to  the  Church  triumphant,  when  time  shall  be  no  more.  When 
the  Harlot  of  Home  obtained  control  of  God's  temple,  of  course  she  put  them  out, 
and  burnt  many  of  them  at  the  stake  ;  but  immediately  when  that  power  was  broken, 
they  uprose  again,  moved  by  the  divine  impulse,  and  began  the  work  to  which  the 
Spirit  ©f  God  had  consecrated  them  four  thousand  years  before.  They  are  doing 
the  same  to-day  in  our  churches — ruling  and  teaching,  the  better  qualitied  teaching 
from  the  pulpit ;  the  less  fitted  teaching  in  the  homes  and  in  the  Sabbath-school. 
As  the  ancient  elders  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb,  so  do  the  elders  now 
distribute  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  memorial  feast  of  God's  people.  All  this  Dr. 
Monfort,  and  every  man  who  accepts  the  plain  historical  statement  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, admits.  But  he  says  the  elders  were  divided  into  two  "orders,"  one  "ordus" 
higher  than  the  other.     When?     Where?     By  whose  authority? 

Now  let  me,  in  one  or  two  sentences,  meet  and  refute  the  inferences  from  his 
quotations  of  the  "Book"  and  the  assemblies.  Nowhere  in  either  has  the  two-ordv# 
idea  ever  been  suggested.  He  confuses  the  two  general  departments  of  duty  with 
the  idea  of  two  orders.  These  two  departments  so  overlap  each  other  that  there  is 
no  line  surveyable  between  them.  The  preaching  elders  rule.  The  ruling  elders 
teach.  Both  unite  in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments.  Both  are  installed  into 
one  office  by  ordination.  Both  take  the  same  obligations  as  to  faith  and  duty.  Both 
are  designated  by  the  same  names — presbyters — elders.  Both,  on  a  theoretical,  per- 
fect equality,  constitute  our  church-courts.  The  object  of  our  overtures  is  to  make 
the  practice  correspond  to  the  theory.  Both  minister  in  spiritual  things.  Neither 
can  serve  a  congregation  of  believers  without  being  duly  elected  by  the  people.  In 
spite  of  all  that  human  pride  and  error,  the  power  of  hierarchies  and  the  influence 
of  great  names,  could  do,  the  Spirit  of  God  has  seen  to  it  that  identity  has  been 
preserved.  I  proceed  now  to  further  fortify  this  position.  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  in 
his  "History  of  the  Christian  Church,"  gives  a  very  clear  summary  of  the  evi- 
dences that  the  elders  were  of  but  one  order,  a  part  of  which  I  make  room  for : 

The  identity  of  these  offices  is  very  evident  from  the  following  facts  : 

They  appear  always  as  a  plurality,  or  as  a  college  in  one  and  the  same  congregations,  even  in 
smaller  cities,  as  Philippi. 

The  same  officers  in  the  church  of  Ephesus  are  alternately  called  presbyters  and  bishops. 

In  the  pastoral  epistles,  where  Paul  intends  to  give  the  qualifications  for  all  church-officers,  he 
again  mentions  onlv  two— bishops  and  deacons  ;  but  uses  the  word  presbyter  afterward  for  bishop. 

Paul  sends  greetings  to  the  "bishops"  and  deacons  of  Philippi;  but  omits  the  presbyters,  be- 
cause they  are  included  in  the  first  term,  as  also  the  plural  indicates. 

Peter  urges  the  "presbyters"  to  attend  the  "flock  of  God,"  and  to  "fulfill  the  office  of  bishops" 
with  disinterested  devotion,  and  without  "lording"  it  over  the  charge  allotted  to  them 

The  interchange  of  terms  continued  till  the  close  of  the  first  century,  as  is  evident  from  the 
epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  (about  95),  and  still  lingered  toward  the  close  of  the  second  century. 

I  omit  further  scriptural  evidences  cited  by  Dr.  Schaff.  "The  distinction,"  he 
says,  in  a  note  on  page  492,  "dated  from  the  second  century."  "The  Council  of 
Trent  first  declared  the  bishops  to  be  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  pronounced 


[26] 

anathemas  on  those  who  say  that  bishops  are  not  superior  to  presbyters."     On  page 
494  note : 

Even  Pope  Urban  (A.  D.  ioqi)  says  that  the  primitive  Church  knew  only  two  orders — the  dea- 
conate  and  the  presbyterate.  The  original  identity  of  presbyter  and  bishop  is  not  only  insisted  on 
by  Presbyterians,  Lutherans,  Congregationalists,  but  is  freely  conceded  also  by  Episcopal  com- 
mentators, as  Whitley,  Bloomfield,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Alford,  Ellicott,  Lightfoot.  Stanley 
and  others.  It  is  also  conceded  by  purely  critical  historians,  as  Rothe,  Kitsche,  Baur  and  Kenan. 
This  subject,  then,  may  be  regarded  as  settled  among  scholars. 

Schaff  states  (page  495)  substantially  the  view  expressed  by  Dr.  John  Hall,  as 
quoted  in  our  first  article,  that  the  Gentile  churches  were  organized  upon  the  same 
basis  with  the  Jewish  Christian  churches,  with  the  familiar  board  of  bishops. 

Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  in  his  "Knowledge  of  God,"  page  630,  etseq.,  pre- 
sents the  same  facts.  After  showing  that  the  eldership  was  a  gift  of  God,  "older 
than  that  of  the  call  of  Moses,  which  he  found  aud  by  command  of  God  organized," 
and  that  Peter  described  them,  he  says  : 

We  learn,  therefore,  the  same  things  from  Paul  as  before  from  Peter.  God  had  a  church  in 
Ephesus,  which,  like  all  his  other  churches,  had  office-bearers  in  it,  called  elders  or  presbyters, 
who  were  overseers  or  bishops,  who  were  placed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  over  his  flock  or  church,  to 
take  care  of  it  and  feed  it — that  is,  to  be  its  pastors,  bishops,  teachers  and  rulers. 

So  Dr.  Thornwell's  collected  writings,  Vol.  IV.,  page  290,  says: 

The  genius  is  one,  and  that  is  what  is  meant  by  saying  the  order  is  one.  The  species  them- 
selves, of  course,  differ  ;  otherwise  they  could  not  be  species  at  all,  and  the  difference  is  accurately 
signalized  by  the  epithets  teaching  and  ruling.  Any  other  doctrine  is  stark  prelacy.  If  the  rul- 
ing elder  is  a  spiritual  officer,  and  yet  is  not  a  co-ordinate  species  with  the  minister  of  the  gospel, 
there  must  be  subordination.  If  they  are  not  equal,  one  must  be  higher  than  the  other.  If  they 
are  not  of  the  same  order,  then  they  are  of  different  orders,  and  the  parity  of  spiritual  office- 
bearers is  given  to  the  winds.  This  is  the  legitimate  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter — to  convert 
Presbyterian  ministers  into  prelates  and  Presbyterian  elders  into  their  humble  subjects. 

Rev.  Prof.  Chancellor,  Belfast  Pan  Council,  page  374,  topic,  "Ruling  Elders": 

The  recently  discovered  "Teaching  of  the  Apostles"  shows  conclusively  that  the  organization 
nnd  order  sanctioned  by  the  apostles,  continued  to  prevail  during  the  first  half  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. *  *  That  the  elders  continued  to  hold  the  same  place  of  dignity  and  power  during  the 
latter  half  of  the  second  century  and  afterward,  despite  the  gradual  encroachments  of  the  clerical 
episcopacy,  is  admitted. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  heap  up  authorities  to  show  that  what  Dr.  Schaff  says  is 
now  "settled  among  scholars"  is  true,  that  there  was  only  one  order  of  ministers 
authorized  by  Christ's  apostles — the  elders  — and  that  the:e  were  separated  only  by 
the  gifts  personal  to  each.  This  is  the  plain  teaching  on  the  face  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  it  is  agreed  to  by  all  scholars;  even,  as  I  have  shown,  popes  and  prelates  agree 
to  the  oneness  of  the  presbyters. 

This  is  a  demonstration.  It  leaves  no  room  for  a  subordinate  class  of  elders, 
hence  those  who  insist  upon  such  subordination  deny  that  any  principles  or  plan  of 
church  government  are  revealed  in  Scripture. 

Now,  what  are  the  necessary  conclusions?  That  elders  are  ordained  ministers? 
Yes,  they  are  ordained,  and  they  are  ministers  in  spiritual  things.  That  they  have 
a  right  to,  and  are  in  duty  bound  to  preach  and  administer  the  ordinances?  Not  at 
all.  They  have  a  right  to,  and  are  in  duty  bound  to  render  the  ministry  to  which 
they  are  appointed  by  the  lawful  authority — that,  and  nothing  more,  nothing  less. 
In  this  they  are  not  exceptional.  A  preaching  elder  can  not  lawfully  even  come 
into  the  bounds  of  Chicago  Presbytery  and  preach  a  sermon  in  one  of  our  churches 
without  leave  of  the  Presbytery.  Men  are  licensed  to  preach,  but  forbidden  to 
perform  any  other  functions  of  ministry  or  administration.  The  ruling  elder,  though 
lie  be  Christ's  called  and  ordained  servant,  would  not,  by  the  recognition  of  that 
fact,  be  given  a  degree  of  independence  of  church  authority  in  excess  of  that 
enjoyed  by  the  preaching  elder.  The  church  chooses,  and  ordains,  and  appoints, 
and  controls.  I  am  a  carpenter,  and  my  employer  sends  me  to  hew  out  beams  with 
the  broad-ax  in  the  forest.  My  brother  is  a  carpenter,  and  our  employer  sets  him 
to  finishing  work  in  the  elegant  parlors.  I  am  not  fitted  to  do  that  class  of  work  — 
he  is.  Fitness,  after  employment  by  God's  call,  is  the  sole  determining  factor.  But 
the  individual  has  no  right  to  set  up  his  own  judgment  of  his  own  fitness,  nor  even 
to  decide  the  cmestion  whether  he  has  the  divine  call.  The  Church,  representing 
Christ  and  voicing  his  will,  decides  all  such  questions.  And  if  she  be  faithful,  and 
listen  to  the  voice  of  her  Lord  in  his  word,  to  the  still  small  voice  of  his  Spirit, 
and  study  the  development  of  his  providences,  she  will  not  fail  to  speak  Christ's 
will. 


[27] 

These  elders  are  called  into  Christ's  kingdom  and  then  called  by  Christ  into  special 
service.    They  are  called  to  preside  and  serve  in  spiritual  things.     Christ's  call  to 

them  is  by  Ins  Spirit,  providences  and  by  his  Chnrch,  which  jodges  of  the  call  and 
confirms  it  if  it  be  genuine.     To  say  that  the  Church  shall  not  be  permitted  t>>  call 

one  of  these  presiding  officers  of  Christ  to  preside  in  her  assemblies,  is  to  forcibly 
stop  her  mouth  in  a  case  in  which  Christ  calls  on  her  to  speak. 

Hut  can  an  elder  perform  ministerial  functions?  Certainly,  if  the  assembled 
Church  authorizes  him  to.  Or  he  can  perform  such  part  as  is  assigned  to  him,  and 
others  perform  other  parts,  as  provided  for  in  the  overtures.  Wm.  C.  Gkay. 


XIII. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  December  22,   1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 
Dr.    W.   C.    Gray,  Editor  of  the  Interior: — 

Dear  Brother: — You  said  in  reference  to  my  correspondence  with  distinguished 
men:  "It  immediately  called  to  mind  a  similar  stratagem  devised  by  Satan  on  the 
second  day  of  the  battle  in  heaven."  And  now  you  say:  "No,  sir;  you  are  a  young 
angel."  You  are  wrong  in  both  cases.  I  am  not  an  angel  of  either  "sort."  I  am 
simply  a  man.  Moreover,  I  am  entitled  to  have  my  arguments  answered.  You 
seem  to  have  become  weary  of  the  scriptural  argument,  after  clamoring  so  loud  for 
it;  and  seeing  nothing  in  the  Form  of  Government  to  help  you,  betake  yourself  to 
resting  your  argument  on  weight  of  personal  opinions. 

1.  You  say  the  English  Church  "elected  Dr.  Collingwood  Bruce,  a  ruling  elder, 
who  was  not  a  minister,  to  her  chief  moderatorship."  It  is  true  that  Rev.  John  Col- 
lingwood Bruce,  A.M.,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  F.K.S.,  was  moderator  of  the  English  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  1881,  but  he  was  not  an  "eWe/--moderator ;"  although,  not 
being  a  pastor,  he  may  have  represented  some  session,  which  is  often  the  case  in  the 
English  Church,  and  he  may  have  been  consequently  enrolled  with  the  elders  in  the 
records  of  the  Synod.  The  law  of  the  Synod  is  in  these  words:  "The  moderator 
must  be  an  ordained  minister"    (note  3). 

2.  You  say:  "Dr.  J.  Monro  Gibson  informs  me  that  some  time  ago  the  moder- 
atorship of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  was  offered  by  influential  men  to  Hon. 
Murray  Dunlap."  What  of  it?  You  have  been  offering  the  moderator's  chair  for 
five  years,  and  the  offer  is  out  for  1887.  The  Free  Church  Assembly,  like  our  own, 
has  never  had  an  elder-moderator. 

3.  George  Buchanan  was  not  a  ruling  elder  in  contradistinction  from  a  preaching 
elder.  He  was  a  doctor,  but  not  a  pastor.  lie  was  principal  of  St.  Leonard's  Col- 
lege, Aberdeen,  and  was  an  eminent  teacher  and  author.  He  may  be  called  a  lay- 
man, as  all  were  who  were  not  pastors  or  preachers,  receiving  their  living  from  the 
legal  stipend.  He  was  moderator  in  1567,  about  eighty  years  before  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  According  to  the  first  (15G0)  and  second  or  amended  (1578) 
Buik  of  Discipline,  the  following  extracts  explain  the  polity  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  : 

Elderships  and  assemblies  are  commonlie  constitute  of  pastors,  doctors  and  sic  as  we  commonlie 
call  elders,  that  labor  not  in  word  and  doctrine. 

When  it  is  the  name  of  one  office  some  tyme  it  is  taken  largely  comprehending  als  weill  the  pas- 
tors and  doctors  as  them  who  are  cal'it  seniors  or  elders 

As  the  pastors  and  doctors  should  be  diligent  in  teachings  and  sowing  the  seid  of  the  word,  so 
the  elders  should  be  cairful  in  seiking  the  same  in  the  people. 

Their  principall  office  is  to  hald  assemblies  with  the  pastors  and  doctors,  who  are  also  of  their 
number,  for  establishing  of  gude  order  and  execution  of  discipline. 

For  the  doctors  is  give  the  word  of  knawledge  to  open  up,  bi  simple  teaching,  the  mysteries  of 
faith ;  to  the  pastor  the  gift  of  wisdome  to  apply  the  same  to  the  manners  of  the  flock,  as  the  occa- 
sion craveth. 

Under  the  name  and  office  of  a  doctor  we  comprehend  the  order  in  schooles  and  collidges  and 
universities. 

The  doctor  being  an  elder,  as  said  is,  sould  assist  the  pastor,  in  the  govermente,  and  concurre 
with  the  elders,  his  brethren,  in  all  assemblies. 

heeing  the  moderator  is  frequently  called  to  exercise  the  power  of  order,  as  solemn  public  eccle- 
siastical prayer,  at  least  twice  every  session,  to-wit :  at  its  first  opening  and  then  at  its  closing, 
authoritative  exhortation,  rebuke,  direction,  it  is  convenient  the  moderator  be  always  a  minister. 

In  the  absence  of  the  present  moderator  of  the  presbytery,  his  predecessor  in  the  chair  moder- 
ates, and  in  case  of  his  absence  the  eldest  minister. 

The  moderator  of  the  former  synod  doth  on  the  morning  preach  a  sermon  suited  to  the  occasion- 


[28  J 

The  moderator  of  the  former  assembly  opens  it  with  a  sermon,  but  in  case  of  his  absence  his 
predecessor  in  that  chair  hath  the  sermon,  and  in  the  absence  of  them  both  the  eldest  minister  in 
the  town  where  they  meet  preacheth  and  openeth  the  assembly  by  prayer,  and  moderates  till  a 
new  moderator  be  chosen. 

The  minister  of  the  word  being  an  office  above  that  of  the  ruling  elder,  can  not  be  liable  to  the 
censure  of  the  kirk  session. 

I  take  these  extracts  from  the  Pardovan  Collections,  which  is  the  best  of  author- 
ity, and  put  them  together  because  of  their  bearing  upon  the  moderatorship  of 
George  Buchanan,  and  also  to  show  that  Presbyterian  government  is  what  it  was 
from  the  first  in  regard  to  offices  and  judicatories.  It  will  be  seen  that  every 
extract  helps  to  confirm  the  difference  in  office  and  order  of  the  ministry  and  elder- 
ship, and  their  equality  in  rulership,  as  well  as  the  expediency  of  making  moderators 
of  ministers  only.  Even  if  you  had  proven  that  a  few  ruling  elders  had  been  elected 
moderators  in  the  Scotch  and  English  Assemblies,  it  would  have  amounted  to 
nothing  in  such  a  discussion.  One  Scotch  elder-moderator,  319  years  ago,  and  one 
offer  by  a  few  persons  privately,  are  certainly  a  small  showing  in  comparison  with 
the  32b'  years  of  opposite  law  and  practice.  If  you  are  happy  in  your  transatlantic 
historical  argument,  your  contentment  is  admirable.  You  remind  me  of  1'atrick 
Henry,  who  had  been  sitting  a  long  time  on  the  bank  of  a  stream.  A  friend 
approached  him  after  some  hours  with  the  inquiry,  "Have  you  caught  any  fish?" 
The  reply  was,  "None."  Then  said  his  friend,  "Do  you  get  any  bites?"  "Not  one," 
said  he,  "but  I  got  one  glorious  nibble." 

4.  Your  reference  to  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians  is  of  no  value  to  you.  Are 
you  not  aware  that  that  Church  was  an  exodus  from  us  because  the  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky condemned  the  licensure  of  four  men,  by  its  Presbytery  of  Cumberland,  with- 
out the  qualifications  for  the  ministry  prescribed  in  our  Eorm  of  Government. 

5.  Your  reference  to  the  Presbyterian  Council  is  even  more  of  a  blunder.  Do 
you  not  know  that  this  body  is  not  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ?  It  does  not  exercise 
government  and  discipline.  It  does  not  even  vote  on  doctrine,  polity  or  duty. 
Most  certainly  an  elder  is  as  suitable  a  person  to  preside  in  such  a  body  as  over 
presbyterial  Sunday-school  institutes,  or  missionary  or  temperance  meetings.  Is 
this  what  you  mean  by  "burying  me  five  miles  deep"? 

G.  You  say  a  large  majority  of  the  last  Assembly  submitted  the  overture.  It  was 
thought  best  and  safest  to  have  a  discussion  which  only  such  an  overture  could  give. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  a  large  majority  of  the  last  Assembly  and  in  the  presbyteries 
will  vote  against  the  overture.  It  has  few  friends  outside  of  the  diocese  of  the 
Interior. 

7.  As  to  the  jure  divino  argument,  you  mutilate  and  change  my  statements  and  do 
me  injustice.  Whatever  is  scriptural  is  "jure  divino,"  and  I  have  said  nothing  to 
the  contrary.  My  statement,  "The  jure  divino  covers  doctrine,  not  church  polity," 
was  given  to  explain  the  difference  in  the  vows  in  receiving  our  "confession"  and 
our  "government  and  discipline."  The  first  we  "adopt"  and  the  second  we 
"approve."  I  said,  however,  in  regard  to  your  reference  to  Drs.  Morris  and 
Humphrey,  that  I  hold  that,  in  regard  to  our  government,  we  do  not  claim  it  to  be 

jure  divino  "in  all  its  details."  The  last  clause  you  omit.  I  said  also,  as  you  say, 
that  our  government  is  jure  divivo  in  its  fundamental  principles,  and  I  cite,  as  you 
do,  its  doctrine  as  to  ministers  and  elders.  We  only  differ  as  to  what  these  funda- 
mental principles  are. 

8.  Your  quotations  from  Schaff,  Thornwell,  Breckinridge  and  others,  in  favor  of 
the  one  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  or  elders  have  no  reference  to  the  equality 
of  the  office  or  order  of  ministers  and  elders  in  our  Church.  They  belong  to  the 
controversy  with  prelatists  who  hold  three  different  orders  of  the  ministry  (bishops, 
elders  and  deacons)  and  three  ordinations,  and  also  three  functions.  You  persist  in 
using  the  words  order  and  orders,  as  used  by  hierarchists,  and  you  insist  that  I  must 
do  the  same.  I  use  the  term  order  as  indicating  an  office  by  ordination.  Our  Book 
says  that  there  are  three  offices  in  the  Church.  I  have  proved  that  these  are  scrip- 
tural. The  ordination  and  the  vows  are  not  the  same  in  the  case  of  ministers  and 
ruling  elders.  Elders  do  not  promise  to  preach  and  administer  holy  ordinances, 
and  they  are  not  commissioned  to  do  so.  Now,  suppose  you  quit  quoting  from  the 
controversy  between  presbytery  and  episcopacy,  and  give  yourself  awhile  to  the 
offices  mentioned  in  the  overture,  and  to  their  functions. 

9.  You  have  said  that  elders  have  the  same  right  with  ministers  to  preach,  dispense 


[29] 

baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  T  am  glad  that  you  have  committed  yourself  thus 
far.  I  wish  you  would  go  further  and  say  that  riders  have  a  right  to  lay  hands  on 
ministers,  and  that  an  elder-moderator  may  exercise  the  power  of  the  presbytery 
and  by  prayer  set  apart  a  minister  and  convey  to  him,  in  the  name  of  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  the  authority  and  functions  of  an  embassador  of  Christ.  This  would 
be  consistent,  and  I  think  your  courage  ought  to  be  equal  to  it.  1  would  like  also 
to  know  if  it  is  not  a  part  of  your  scheme  to  have  elders  to  be  members  of  presby- 
tery, and  to  he  ordained  by  presbytery,  and  take  the  same  vows  and  secure  the 
same  functions  that  belong  to  ministers  of  the  gospel;  or,  if  that  can  not  be  done, 
to  have  ministers  to  be  members,  not  of  the  presbytery,  but  of  the  congregation, 
and  get  their  ordination  in  the  same  way,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  ses- 
sion, or  by  a  council  called  by  the  session  or  church?  And  are  you  not  in  favor  of 
expunging  the  chapter  in  our  Form  of  Government  that  defines  the  office  and 
duties °of  ruling  elders,  and  have  the  chapter  on  ministers  to  answer  for  the  com- 
bined office?  And  are  you  not  anxious  to  have  the  idea  of  a  call  to  the  ministry 
eliminated  from  our  system  of  polity?  or  applied  equally  to  ministers  and  elders? 
and  do  you  not  think  that  the  long  course  of  study  for  the  ministry  should  be  given 
up,  to  seeuie  a  better  equality?  And  would  it  not  be  wise,  and  hasten  the  equality 
and  identity  of  the  two  offices,  to  do  away  with  the  theological  seminaries  and  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  take  the  starch  out  of  the  young  theologues  who  are  being 
educated  to  lord  it  over  the  eldership?  And  do  you  not  believe  that  the  designa- 
tion ''ruling  elders"  should  be  no  longer  used  in  the  Church,  and  have  all  called 
ministers?  Any  views  you  may  express  on  any  of  these  points  would  bear  on  the 
subject  of  the  eligibility  of  the  elders  to  the  moderatorship,  of  which  thus  far  you 
have  said  very  little. 

10.  You  make  a  very  defective  effort  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  arising  from  the 
difference  of  functions  and  duties  of  the  two  offices.  You  are  obliged  to  confess  that 
consistency  requires  you  to  claim,  as  an  elder,  the  right  to  preach  and  dispense 
ordination  and  the  sacraments;  and  when  asked  why  you  do  not  go  on  and  do  what 
you  claim  you  are  ordained  to  do,  all  you  have  been  able  thus  far  to  say  is,  that 
you  are  under  the  presbytery,  as  ministers  are,  and  can  only  do  what  it  prescribes. 
This  is  utterly  erroneous,  for  the  reason  that  the  presbytery  is  under  law  and  can 
not  require  you  to  do  what  you  have  no  right  to  do.  You  are  ordained  and  have 
your  commission,  and  it  is  your  duty  to  do  your  duty,  and  the  presbytery  will  not 
restrain  you,  but  it  will  say  to  you,  if  you  do  well,  "Well  done,  thou  good  and 
faithful  servant." 

The  presbytery  can  never  advise  or  order  you  to  do  what  is  not  in  your  ordina- 
tion vows,  which  is  the  measure  of  your  duty.  The  distinctive  vow  you  have  sol- 
emnly taken  before  God  is  in  the  following  question  and  answer,  viz.: 

Question  4.  Do  you  accept  the  office  of  ruling  elder  in  this  congregation,  and  promise  faithfully 
to  perform  all  the  duties  thereof?     Answer,  I  do. 

The  duties  are  defined  in  the  chapter  on  Ruling  Elders  to  be  "exercising  govern- 
ment and  discipline  in  conjunction  with  pastors  and  ministers."  Now  in  order  to 
see  that  the  presbytery  can  not  assign  you  the  work  of  the  ministry,  outside  of  rul- 
ing elder,  you  have  only  to  examine  the  vows  that  the  presbytery  imposes  on  min- 
isters at  their  ordination.     They  are  as  follows,  viz.: 

Question  5.  Have  you  been  induced,  as  far  as  you  know  your  own  heart,  to  seek  the  office  of 
the  holy  ministry  from  love  to  God  and  a  sincere  desire  to  promote  his  glory  in  the  gospel  of  his 
Son?     Answer,  I  have 

6.  Do  you  promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel  and  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  whatever  persecutions  or  opposition  may  arise  unto  you  on  that  account. 
Answer,  I  do. 

7.  Do  you  engage  to  be  faithful  and  diligent  in  the  exercise  of  all  personal  and  private  duties, 
which  become  you  as  a  Christian  and  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  as  well  as  in  all  relative  duties  and 
the  public  duties  of  your  office,  endeavoring  to  adorn  the  profession  of  the  gospel  by  your  conver- 
sation, and  walking  with  exemplary  piety  before  the  flock  over  which  God  has  made  you  an  over- 
seer ?     Answer,  I  do. 

8.  Are  you  now  willing  to  take  charge  of  this  congregation,  agreeable  to  your  declaration  at 
accepting  their  call  ?  And  do  you  promise  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  pastor  to  them,  as  God  shall 
give  you  strength?     Answer,  1  do. 

The  duties  of  the  minister  are  "to  declare  the  will  of  God"  and  to  "dispense  the 
manifold  grace  of  God  and  the  ordinances  instituted  by  Christ."  Let  me  add  one 
of  the  vows  taken  by  the  people — 

Question  4.  Do  you  promise  to  receive  the  word  of  truth  from  his  mouth  with  meekness  and 
love,  and  to  submit  to  him  in  the  exercise  of  discipline  ?     Answer,  We  do. 


[30] 

Now  it  does  seem  to  me  that  when  you  engage  in  the  work  of  obliterating  the 
distinction  between  the  office  and  order  of  the  minister  and  ruling  elder,  yuu  are 
opp  tsing  an  ordinance  of  God;  yon  are  doing  despite  to  the  functions  of  the  holy 
ministry;  you  are  taking  a  course  to  array  the  eldership  against  the  ministry,  by 
charging  that  ministers  are  trying  to  keep  elders  under  their  feet ;  you  are  demand- 
ing that  ministers  stand  back  and  not  speak  for  elders;  and  you  are  exhorting 
elders  to  put  on  their  war-paint  and  light  for  their  rights.  In  all  this  you  are  im- 
periling the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church.  You  do  not  carry  on  your  warfare 
by  square  conflict;  hut  hy  skirmishing  here  and  there,  and  by  extempore  attacks 
and  diversions.  You  dare  not  show  your  consistency  by  going  to  your  own  session 
and  saying  to  your  pastor:  "You  and  I  are  of  the  same  order,  and  I  have  the  same 
right  to  moderate  the  session  that  you  have."  Try  on  your  doctrine  and  see  what 
will  come  of  it.  If  you  were  to  do  so,  you  would  be  rotated  out  of  office  at  the  first 
opportunity.  E.  R.  Monfort. 

XIV. 

"Herald  and  Fresbyter,"  December  29,  iS86. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

DR.  GRAY'S  FOURTH  AND  LAST  ARTICLE. 
Dr.  E.  B.  Monjort,  Editor  Herald  and  Presbyter : — 

Dear  Brother: — You  say  "there  was  no  compromise"  made  by  the  "Westminster 
Assembly;  that  the  word  proistemenas — translated  "rule" — does  not  contain  the  idea 
of  presiding;  that  none  of  the  "Old  Testament  people"  presided  over  the  visible 
Church  of  Cod.  (I  was  wrong  in  naming  Barak.)  You  deny  that  the  sacramental 
Passover  was  committed  to  the  elders.  You  say  there  never  was  an  elder  before 
Christ,  whose  rule  was  confined  to  spiritual  things.  You  seek  to  break  the  connec- 
tion between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New — between  the  Passover  and  the  Lord's 
Supper — between  the  local  churches  before  (  hrist  and  the  same  churches  thereafter; 
and  seem  disposed  to  deny  that  the  Church  of  Christ  existed  before  his  coming. 
You  deny  that  there  is  any  superiority  in  rulership  for  one  class  over  another  in  our 
church-courts.  Fortunately  for  me,  we  address  an  intelligent  audience.  Pardon 
me  for  saying  that  when  a  debate  is  reduced  to  the  dregs  of  such  contradictions,  and 
to  such  appeals  against  the  overtures  addressed  to  the  supposed  selfish  and  sinful 
jealousies  of  ministers,  and  to  the  supposed  laziness  and  worldliness  of  elders,  it  has 
passed  beyond  the  line  of  profitable  controversy. 

■  You  speak  contemptuously  of  the  doctrine  that  God's  divine  call  has  been  ex- 
tended to  every  soul  in  his  kingdom,  as  "spreading  it  out  very  thin,"  and  as  "sub- 
verting our  system."  I  am  glad,  for  the  sake  of  my  ministerial  brethren,  that  none 
of  them  employed  this  dangerous  language.  How  can  my  call  to  a  less  important 
work  impair  the  honor  of  my  pastor's  call  to  a  more  important  work?  You  ask  me 
why,  if  I  have  the  6ame  call  with  my  pastor,  I  do  not  preach?  I  do  preach  in  an 
humble  sort  of  way,  but  not  in  the  pulpit.  I  am  satisfied  that  I  am  not  called  to 
that  method  of  preaching — first,  because  I  have  not  the  gifts ;  and,  secondly,  because 
the  presbytery  and  the  Church  know  it,  and  don't  want  me  for  that  work.  But  we 
elders  are  called  to  live  Christ,  as  well  as  to  teach  him.  In  the  profoundest  and  in 
an  awful  sense,  "Woe  is  me  if  I  preach  not  the  gospel." 

The  adoption  of  the  pending  overtures,  or  of  one  embodying  the  principle,  will 
certainly  be  realized.  The  signs  of  the  reunion  of  our  dissevered  Church,  North 
and  South,  grow  more  hopeful  and  bright  every  year  and  every  month,  and  it  is 
coming  on  apace.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  any  considerable  number  of  our 
people  will  insist  on  disfranchising  the  Southern  elders?  No  man  would  have  the 
hardihood  to  propose  such  a  thing  to  the  ministers  and  elders  of  the  Southern 
Church.  "We  shall,  if  this  measure  be  defeated,  be  urged  by  our  consciences,  and 
by  the  united  voice  of  Evangelical  Christendom,  to  retrace  our  steps,  and  we  will 
assuredly  do  so. 

The  progress  of  general  education  has  given  us  a  great  number  of  highly-educated 
and  able  men  in  the  eldership.  Is  it  supposable  that  the  anomaly  of  holding  these 
men  as  an  inferior  and  as  a  comparatively  ignorant  grade  can  last  ? 


[  31  ] 

The  honor  which  a  true  and  self-reliant  man  does  to  himself  by  magnanimity, 
and  by  chivalrous  justice  and  respect  t<>  his  brethren,  is  a  constant  appeal  to  our 
ministry  against  the  existing  conditions. 

The  appeal  to  the  worldlinesa  and  indifference  of  the  elders,  by  telling  them  that 
the  proposed  amendment  will  raise  the  standard  of  qualifications  forthe  eldership, 
may  influence  some  who  are  worldly  and  careless,  just  as  an  appeal  to  a  mean  spirit 
of  hellish  jealousy  may  find  here  and  there  a  sympathetic  response  from  a  minister, 
but  mayGod  forbid  that  there  shall  be  many  such.  The  elders  know  that  the  staml- 
ard  is  already  fixed.  (Titus  i.  5-9.)  The  only  effect  it  will  have  will  be  to  send 
them  to  their  knees  for  more  of  God's  Spirit  and  grace. 

Three  times,  in  his  last  article,  Dr.  Monfort  directly  refers  to  an  ungodly  spirit 
of  jealousy,  and  twice  indirectly  to  it — "constant  jealousy,"  "constantly  watch- 
ing." "  Most  ministers  would  prefer  independency  or  prelacy"  to  the  "new 
equality."  Bather  than  submit  to  the  plain  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles — 
teachings  by  precept,  by  practical  exhibition,  and  by  church  organization— rather 
than  renounce  hierarchic  pride,  these  men  will  go  to  Home,  or  to  one-man  power 
independency!  if  it  be  true  that  this  Satanic  spirit  is  strong  enough  to  dominate 
the  Church,  then  it  is  true  that  our  appeals  for  the  sake  of  the  meek  and  lowly 
Jesus  will  be  in  vain.  But  the  accusaiion  ought  to  be  indignantly,  as  it  can  truth- 
fully be,  repelled  by  the  ministers  in  every  part  of  the  land.  I  was  compelled  to 
recognize  prelatical  phrases,  ideas,  arguments  and  expressions  in  Dr.  Monfort's 
articles:  but  this  plain  avowal  of  the  God-dishonoring  and  man-enslaving  spirit 
of  the  hierarchy  astonishes  me. 

The  permanent  defeat  of  this  measure  would  be  a  profound  calamity  to  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  to  the  cause  of  Christ  in  the  world.  For  its  speedy  success 
we  shall  pray,  as  we  pray  "Thy  kingdom  come." 

( >ur  elders  have  been  so  repressed  and  misled  in  regard  to  their  duties,  and  strip- 
ped of  their  responsibility,  that  the  work  which  God  ordained  them  to  do  i-;  left 
undone;  and  already  the  Christian  people  of  Chicago — mostly  Presbyterians — have 
given  the  vast  sum  of  §250,000  to  prepare  undenominational,  uncontrolled,  irre- 
sponsible "lay-evangelists"  to  do  the  work  which  our  elders  ought  to  do,  hut  do  not 
do.  And  this  is  but  the  beginning.  This  quarter  of  a  million  will  swell  to  millions; 
and  our  work  will  go  into  other  and  willing,  though  I  fear  eccentric  and  indis- 
creet, hands.  Who  is  responsible  for  the  paralysis  of  our  vast  army  of  twenty  thou- 
sand elders?  and  for  this  immense  loss  of  power? 

Ten  years  ago,  and  in  subsequent  years,  a  great  swarm  of  "iay-evangelists"  uprose 
in  the  wake  of  the  Moody  revivals.  They  were,  many  of  them,  enthusiasts,  without 
discreetness  or  knowledge.  Some  of  them  were  men  of  bad  morals;  all  of  them 
were  irresponsible.  In  this  exigency  some  of  our  elders  went  out  and  preached  and 
labored  among  the  neglected.  God  blessed  them,  and  set  his  seal  to  their  work, 
and  their  work  abides  to  this  day.  I  then  said  to  our  people:  "  We  have  not  less 
than  ten  thousand  elders  capable  of  doing  this  work.  We  have  a  vast  force  of  men 
who  are  wise,  discreet,  capable,  and  who  are  subordinate  and  obedient  to  our  church 
authorities.  Call  them  to  their  duty,  and  stop  these  indiscreet  enthusiasts  who  are 
afflicting  the  churches." 

One  pastor  said  to  the  writer  of  this,  "I  am  weary  and  ready  to  die.  I  am  worn 
out  with  work !"  "Where  are  your  helpers,  the  elders?"  I  asked.  "I  have  begged, 
even  implored,  them  to  help  me,  but  they  will  not."  And  so  it  was,  and  largely 
is,  over  the  whole  field — a  silent,  paralyzed  army  of  men  who  have  the  vows  of  God 
upon  them  to  labor  in  the  office  of  the  eldership.  Why  is  this?  Plainly  because  they 
were  told,  both  by  precept  and  by  practical  treatment,  that  they  had  no  important 
duties  or  responsibilities.  The  ideal  of  the  office  wa3  and  is  constantly  degraded. 
Responsibility  to  God  is  set  aside  by  the  idea  of  responsibility  to  human  constitu- 
ents. They  were  told,  as  Dr.  Monfort  now  tells  them,  that  God  never  calle  I  them 
into  the  service  —and  that  the  chasm  between  them  and  those  who  represent  Christ 
is  practically  infinite. 

Their  treatment  in  our  church  courts  I  need  not  describe  again.  The  result  was 
to  dispossess  the  elders  of  all  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  extension  of  Christ's 
kingdom — to  paralyze,  as  I  have  said,  a  mighty  and  invincible  army — to  leave  our 
Church,  which,  had  it  employed  its  elders  as  "the  apostolic  church  did,  would  have 
swept  over  this  land  with  irresistible  power,  as  the  first  Christian  elders  did  over 


[32] 

Western  Asia  and  Europe — to  leave  this  mighty  power  far  in  the  rear  of  those 
churches  which,  without  the  true  apostolic  organization,  employed  the  apostolic 
methods  (note  4). 

It  was  not  because  it  is  unfraternal,  and  even  unmanly,  to  treat  our  capable, 
devout,  consecrated  and  energetic  elders  as  an  inferior — and  a  very  inferior — grade 
in  the  courts  of  God's  bouse.  It  was  not  because  disfranchisement  involves  a  loss 
ol  self-respect,  nor  because  it  is  as  discreditable  to  the  one  class  as  to  the  other, 
and  to  the  Church  itself — not  for  these  reasons  that  this  controversy  was  precipitated 
anew  upon  the  Church  ten  years  ago.  It  was  because  the  repudiation  of  Cod's 
divine  plan  was  working  infinite  harm  to  his  Church.  It  was  because  thoughtful 
ministers  and  elders  in  every  part  of  the  Church  saw  that  a  return  to  the  divine 
instructions  would  make  the  Presbyterians  the  most  powerful  organization  for  good 
in  the  world. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  have  insisted  upon  the  consideration  of  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  of  the  office  of  the  eldership.  What  we  are  trying  to  do  in  this 
whole  movement  is  to  bring  the  Church,  the  ministry  and  the  eldership  to  a  full 
realization  of  the  fact  that  those  who  are  called  to  the  office  of  the  eldership  will  be 
held  to  answer  to  God  for  the  exercise  of  a  ministerial  office,  and  that  they  must 
work  while  it  is  day.  "Decline  the  office" — not  if  they  have  God's  love  in  then- 
hearts;  but  if  they  have  not  they  ought  to  decline  it.  They  have  no  right  in  a  divine 
office  to  which  God  has  not  called  them.  Moses  said:  "I  have  not  the  qualifica- 
tions"— and  yet  behold  what  a  work  God  did  with  him!  He  who  longs  for  the  good 
of  his  fellow-men  and  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls,  and  who  earnestly  desires 
that  God  may  employ  him  as  his  servant,  and  lead  him  to  do  his  will,  that  man, 
when  elected  by  the  people,  has  God's  internal  and  external  call  to  the  eldership. 
Let  him  go  forward  in  God's  strength,  preparing  himself  as  best  he  may  for  the 
general  duty  and  for  such  new  duty  as  arises,  and  God  will  put  his  seal  upon  his 
efforts  in  a  way  that  will  fill  him  with  joy  and  thanksgiving. 

What  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  ministry?  It  will  be  glorious — no  less  word  will 
express  it.  Here  is  the  Third  Church  in  Chicago — over  two  thousand  members.  Dr. 
Kittredge  knew,  and  everybody  knew,  that  it  was  the  inspiring  of  the  elders  and 
others  in  the  church  to  work  that  gave  that  grand  result.  There  are  thousands  of 
places  in  this  country  in  which,  if  the  elders  felt  their  responsibility  as  ministers  of 
Christ,  they  would  build  up  organizations  to  the  point  of  self-support  that  would 
enable  them  to  maintain  a  minister  in  comfort.  "Jealousy!"  Are  not  the  pastors 
now,  everywhere,  longing  for  help  from  those  elders  which  they  can  not  get?  Would 
not  every  pastor  rejoice  to  have  a  session  that  would  come  to  him  for  advice  and 
counsel  in  work?  and  then  go  out  and  work  as  opportunities  offered,  with  a  heart 
full  of  love  for  God  and  his  Church? 

We  care  nothing  about  the  honors.  For  my  part  I  would  not  care  if  not  an  elder- 
moderator  were  elected  in  any  Assembly  for  twenty  years  to  come,  except  the  very 
few  that  would  be  necessary  for  the  vindication  of  the  principle.  That  which  we 
ask,  and  all  that  we  ask,  is  an  object-lesson  that  shall  impress  the  churches,  that 
when  they  are  electing  elders  they  are  speaking  for  Christ  in  calling  a  man  to  the 
most  sacred  and  responsible  of  all  offices,  and  that  shall  impress  the  elder  with  a 
solemn  sense  of  his  high  calling  of  God.  All  that  we  ask  is,  that  elders  shall  not  be 
told  in  the  most  impressive  way  that  they  are  not  the  presbyters  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  an  inferior  caste,  and  as  free  from  responsibility  as  they  are  low  in 
station.  The  revival  of  the  primitive  Christian  principles  will,  of  course,  lay  bur- 
dens on  the  elders.  They  will  feel  the  need  of  greater  consecration,  of  a  more  fer- 
vid spirit  of  prayer,  and  they  will  feel  very  deeply  their  unworthinsss  and  weakness; 
but  God  will  be'  witli  them,"  and  they  will  soon  be  filled  with  confidence  and  joy — 
and  their  pastors  will  garner  their  sheaves. 

I  may  sav  that  I  foresaw  what  was  coming  from  the  inception  of  the  "lav- 
evangelistic"  movement,  and  did  my  best  to  arouse  the  elders.  I  even  anticipated 
this  threat  undenominational,  lay-evangelist  theological  seminary.  But  believing  in 
the  divine  politv,  I  urged  that  every  pastor  should  be  the  theological  professor,  and 
hi-,  study  the  seminary,  for  the  preparation  of  our  eldership  for  the  work  which 
they  were  called  to  do.  But  what  was  the  use?  with  the  practice  and  precedents 
teaching  the  elders  that  they  were  not  Scripture  elders,  and  not,  even  called  of  God 
— that  the  office  represents  and  is  only  responsible  to  the  people — to  fallible  ami 


[  33  ] 

erring,  sinful  people— not  t<>  Christ.  What  should  or  what  does  any  man  care  for 
such  a  responsibility?  Absolutely  nothing.  "If  they  don't  like  me,  lit  tin, a  elect 
somebody  else."     That  is  the  thought. 

There  will  he  no  miraculous  uprising  of  the  great  army,  hut  it  will  begin  to 

arise.  We  propose  l"  put  into  the  hands  of  our  ministers  a  hold  and  a  leverage 
upon  the  consciences  of  their  elders  which  will  enable  them,  in  Christ's  i 
kindly  to  compel  them  to  work  for  the  extension  of  Christ's  kingdom.  The  lions 
in  the  path  are  optical  illusions.  The  ministers  will  find  their  elders  more  conse- 
crated and  zealous.  The  elders  will  find  the  anticipated  toil  to  be  sweet.  "My 
yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden  is  light,"  says  Christ.  No  service  will  be  required  of 
them  of  which  they  are  not  capable.  Should  spiritual  pride  spring  up  in  any 
eider's  heart,  he  will  find  that  Presbyterianism  is  a  system  of  law  and  order,  and 
that  he  will  be  compelled  to  submit  to  and  obey  the  authority — the  session  and  the 
presbyteries — which  Qod  has  set  up  for  the  government  of  hisChurch. 

Our  country  to  be  saved.  Our  home  missionaries  starving.  Fields  full  of  prom- 
ise, unseeded.  Twenty  thousand  of  God's  elders  practically  idle.  Ten  thousand  of 
them  men  of  superior  education  and  talents,  fitted  and  ready  for  evangelistic  work. 
The  other  ten  thousand  capable  of  doing  most  valuable  ministry.  All  of  them  self- 
supporting.  If  these  men  are  led  to  perform  their  duties  as  elders,  and  that  duty 
be  shown  to  them,  they  will  build  up  churches  capable  of  supporting  five  thousand 
more  trained  Presbyterian  ministers  in  the  next  ten  years.  He  who  fights  against 
this  movement  is  lighting  against  God. 

Brethren  of  the  ministry,  we  appeal  to  you  to  put  an  end  to  this  dreadful  error 
of  repressing  and  depressing  the  office  of  the  eldership.  Do  not,  as  you  love  Christ's 
cause,  longer  make  pariahs  of  them  in  the  courts  of  God's  house.  But,  with  all  the 
force  of  your  minds  and  hearts,  impress  their  great  responsibility  upon  them.  As 
spiritual  laborers,  by  Cod's  appointment,  we  will  perform  whatever  ministry  we  can 
perform,  however  humble — be  it  only  to  "go  out  into  the  highways  and  hedgeways 
and  compel  them  to  come  in." 

Brethren,  we  are  not  ambitious.  God  forbid  that  a  man  of  us  should  think  of 
any  honor  but  the  honor  of  Christ.  It  is  true,  and  it  is  right  that  it  should  be 
true,  that  with  the  spirit  of  American  Christian  freemen,  with  our  Bibles  in  our 
hands,  with  the  nature  of  our  high  calling  plain  to  our  eyes,  we  hold  the  honor  of 
our  office  in  sacred  regard,  and  we  know  that  whatever  tends  to  discredit  it  is  not 
of  God,  but  of  evil.  May  God  lead  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  call  promptly  into 
the  field  of  battle  this  great  reserve  of  twenty  thousand  chosen  and  commissioned 
soldiers  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (note  5).  Wm.  C.  Gray. 


XV. 

"  Herald  and  Presbyter,"  December  29,  1886. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Dr.  W.  C.  Gray,  Editor  of  tlie  Interior : — 

Dear  Brother. — You  have  adjourned  our  discussion  by  placing  at  the  head  of 
your  article,  "Dr.  Gray's  Fourth  and  Last  Article."  I  regret  this,  for  the  reason 
that  I  had  more  to  say.  I  have  not  given  all  I  desired  on  the  second  proposition, 
which  is  by  far  the  most  important  part  of  the  discussion.  I  have  written  an 
article,  but  it  is  not  what  I  desire  for  closing  the  d-scussion.  Tour  reply,  however, 
does  not  deal  with  my  argument,  but  consists  chiefly  of  lamentations  over  the  paral- 
ysis of  our  twenty  thousand  elders,  who  are  repressed  by  the  ministry,  misled  in 
regard  to  their  duties,  and  stripped  of  their  responsibility;  and  of  exortation  to  all 
concerned  to  make  the  elders  more  efficient.  I  heartily  unite  in  the  exhortation, 
but  not  in  the  lamentation. 

1.  The  eldership  of  our  Church  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  paralvzed.  Tf  was 
never  more  active  and  efficient  than  now,  and  there  never  was  more  confidence, 
harmony  and  co-operation  betweer  ministers  and  elders.  The  Interior  is  the  head- 
quarters of  all  the  discord  that  exists.  Its  trumpet  has  been  constantlv  sounding 
the  charge  that  the  ministers  are  chargeable  with  "degrading  the  eldership."  It  is 
the  duty  of  theological  professors  and  pastors  to  expouud  and  snforce  the  duties  of 


[34] 

ruling  elders,  and  it  has  ever  been  done  to  mutual  edification,  and  the  same  is  true 
in  the  fifty  Presbyterian  denominations  of  the  Presbyterian  Alliance. 

2.  You  have  failed  to  prove  that  the  adoption  of  the  overture  will  stimulate 
elders  to  any  duty  in  their  own  churches,  or  correct  the  abuses  in  lay  evangelism  to 
which  you  refer,  or  do  any  good  to  any  person  or  any  interest. 

3.  I  must  ask  our  readers  to  inform  themselves  as  to  my  views  on  the  connection 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Church,  the  Passover  and  Lord's  Supper,  not  from 
the  series  of  brief  statements  in  your  opening  paragraph,  but  from  my  own  articles. 
They  will  thereby  see  that  I  am  not  correctly  represented.  The  doctrine  and  spirit 
of  our  Church  are  well  expressed  by  Dr.  Chas.  Hodge,  when  he  says: 

The  influence  of  the  clergy  is  not  to  be  increased  by  their  acting  as  laymen,  nor  that  of  laymen 
by  their  acting  as  clergymen.  The  value  of  the  office  of  the  ruling  elder  we  hold  to  be  inestima- 
ble; but  it  depends  upon  his  being  a  ruling  elder,  with  rights,  duties  and  privileges  distinct  from 
those  of  the  ministry;  on  his  being,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  a  layman  and  not  a 
clergyman. 

These  are  my  views  of  the  relations,  interest  and  duties  of  the  offices  of  the  min- 
istry and  eldership.  I  feel  my  obligations,  and  am  not  willing  to  be  regarded  as  a 
minister.  I  do  not  believe  I  could  "open  the  General  Assembly  with  an  appropri- 
ate address."  My  testimony  is,  that  ministers  hold  the  elders  in  high  esteem,  and 
do  not  restrain  them  in  duty,  but  rather  stimulate  them.  I  am  sure  I  have  all  the 
honor  I  deserve,  and  all  the  responsibility  I  can  carry.  The  same  is  true  of  elders 
generally.  Their  office  is  scriptural,  and  its  horror  and  responsibility  are  evenly 
balanced  and  inseparable.  So  far  from  being  paralyzed,  they  are  the  equals  of  any 
body  of  church  officers  on  the  globe.  I  rejoice,  however,  in  anything  calculated  to 
add  to  their  usefulness,  but  there  is  no  proof  that  the  adoption  of  the  overtures 
would  do  this.  You  think  our  discussion  "has  passed  beyond  the  line  of  profitable 
controversy."  I  think  it  has  grown  more  and  more  profitable  every  week,  and  I 
would  have  been  glad  to  have  given  one  more  article  on  the  question  of  expediency 
and  another  summing  up  the  debate.  E.  B.  Monfort. 


Dr.  Gray  sends  me  the  following  reply  to  my  article  of  last  week,  which,  he  says, 
will  appear  in  the  Interior  of  this  week: 

REPLY. 

Last  week  I  enumerated  six  statements  of  facts,  which,  I  think,  1  had  proved  to  the  satisfaction 
of  our  readers,  which  Dr.  Monfort  contradicted  without  giving  his  reasons  for  so  doing.  I  sub- 
mitted them  to  the  intelligence  of  our  readers.  .  In  order  to  make  sure  that  I  was  not  mistaken 
about  the  status  of  Buchanan  and  Bruce,  respectively  moderators  of  the  Scotch  Assembly  and 
the  English  General  Synod  (they  have  no  "assembly"),  I  wrote  to  the  editor  ot  the  Witness  and 
to  Dr  J.  Munro  Gibson  for  confirmation.  The  facts  are  as  I  stated  them.  Neither  were  ordained 
ministers;  both  were  ordained  elders;  both  were  elected  as  elders  to  the  respective  moderator- 
ships.  The  election  of  Buchanan  is  another  fact  showing  what  the  Westminster  Assembly  Pres- 
byterians thought  of  the  elders.  It  was  "expedient"  at  that  time,  as  they  say,  to  elect  ministers, 
because  elders  were  not  then  men  of  education,  as  they  are  now,  except  in  exceptional  cases.  I 
would  be  fully  satisfied  should  our  Church  elect  an  elder-moderator,  like  Collingwood  Bruce,  as 
a  precedent.  It  is  especially  inexcusable  to  contradict  me  in  regard  to  Drs.  Breckinridge  and 
Thornwell,  and  say  that  they  were  arguing  with  avowed  prelatists,  not  with  Presbyterians,  about 
the  eldership.  I  never  said  that  "elders  have  the  same  right  with  ministers  to  preach,  dispense 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper."  In  the  article  which  he  was  reviewing,  and  which  was  under 
his  eye  when  he  wrote,  1  very  clearly,  and  at  length,  set  forth  views  which  defy  such  a  perver- 
sion. The  last  paragraph  of  the  Doctor's  article  is  simply  preposterous.  I  submit  the  whole 
without  further  remarks  Wm.  C.  Gkay. 

1.  In  answer  to  this  paragraph  I  will  say  that  our  information  as  to  Dr.  Colling- 
wood Bruce  was  not  from  private  letters,  but  from  historical  records,  and  from  the 
law  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  which  says  that  "the  moderator  must  be 
an  ordained  minister"  of  the  gospel;  and  I  would  remind  Dr.  Gray  that  George 
Buchanan  presided  as  moderator  three-quarters  of  a  century  before  the  sittings  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  therefore  his  election  could  not  show  what  the 
Westminister  Presbyterians  thought  of  the  elders. 

2.  Drs.  Breckinridge  and  Thornwell  were  arguing  the  question  of  offices  in  the 
Church,  and  did  so  in  view  of  independency  on  the  one  hand  and  prelacy  on  the 
other.  Dr.  Thornwell  uses  the  terms  "genus  and  species,"  and  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
"order  and  class."  I  do  not  object  to  any  of  these  terms.  They  show  that  the 
difference  of  function  and  duty  between  ministers  of  the  gospel  and  ruling  elders  is 
a  reality,  and  is  expressed  by  each  of  them.  Our  Form  of  Government  does  not 
use  the  terms  genus  and  species,  nor  order  and  class,  but  only  the  term  office,  and 


[  35] 


says  there  are  three  offices.  There  is  nothing  in  the  extracts  from  Drs.  Breckinridge 
and  Thorn  well  to  show  that  both  species  or  classes  are  or  ought  to  be  eligible  to  the 
modcratorship  in  our  chureh-judieatories.  Dr.  Breckinridge  holds,  and  Dr.  Thorn- 
^- 1 ■  L 1  formally  indorses  him,  that  ministers  and  elders  differ  in  functions  and  duties, 
and  that  the  difference  is  indicated  by  ordination.  He  says  in  the  saint;  chapter 
from  which  Dr.  Gray  quoted  (page  652),  in  summing  up  his  argument : 

I'll  se  presbyters,  elders,  are  all  of  one  order,  all  equal  in  dignity,  rank  and  authority  as  Rulers  ; 
but  that  order  is  divided  into  two  classes,  of  which  one  labor  in  word  and  doctrine,  and  are  stew- 
ards of  the  mysteries  of  God,  in  which  additional  functions  all  this  class  (ministers)  are  also  of 
equal  rank,  authority  and  dignity,  one  with  another ;  the  class  to  which  each  particular  presbyter 
belongs  being  determined  by  vocation  and  ordination. 

This  is  Dr.  Breckinridge,  and  Dr.  Thornwell  indorses  him  ex  ammo.  He  says  in 
his  review  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  book,  when  considering  this  very  chapter  from 
which  Dr.  Gray  quotes: 

"  That  all  government  is  by  councils  ;  that  these  councils  are  representative  and  deliberative  ; 
that  jure  divino  they  are  all  presbyteries,  and,  as  presbyteries,  composed  exclusively  of  presby- 
ters ;  that  presbyters,  though  one  in  order  and  the  right  to  rule,  are  subdivided  into  two  classes 
— these  points  are  ably,  scripturally,  unanswerably  established  in  the  work  before  us." 

3.  Dr.  Gray  said  in  the  Interior  of  October  2,  18S6 :  "It  would  be  scripturally 
lawful  for  us  to  exercise  any  ministerial  function,  and  we  would  not  hesitate  to  do 
it  in  circumstances  where  the  glory  of  God  and  the  consolation  and  edification  of  his 
people  seemed  to  require  it." 

Is  it  not  clearly  implied  in  this  quotation  that  Dr.  Gray  claims  the  right  to 
preach,  dispense  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  any  other  function  belonging 
to  the  ministry  ?  E.  R.  Monfort. 


XVI. 

"  Herald  and  Presbyter,"  January  5,  1887. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

CARD   FROM,  DR.    GRAY. 

Dr.  E.  R.  Mon/ort,  My  Dear  Sir  :— 

I  fear  that  your  readers  will  misunderstand  the  first  paragraph  of  your  last.  Before  I  had 
written  my  "  fourth  "  and  concluding  article,  you  write  to  me  privately,  asking  me  when  I  wished 
to  conclude,  and  saying  that  if  1  chose  not  to  reply  to  the  article  of  which  you  inclosed  proof, 
you  would  consider  the  debate  closed.  As  I  had  then  said  nothing  directly  on  the  second  propo- 
sition, I  could  not  fully  comply  with  the  suggestion,  but  I  threw  aside  my  materials  summarized, 
■without  replying  to  a  half  dozen  of  your  contradictions  of  my  statements,  and  concluded  as  briefly 
as  possible.  I  have  been  sensitive  about  inflicting  a  debate  on  our  and  your  readers  after  it  might 
be  tiresome  to  them,  and  as  you  seemed  to  have  the  same  feeling,  I  sacrificed  my  prep  rations 
and  ended  my  part  of  it.  Fraternally,  Wm,  C.  Gkay. 

REPLY. 

My  Dear  Dr.  Gray : — 

In  my  private  letter  of  December  20,  inclosing  a  two-column  article,  I  did  call 
your  attention  to  your  prediction  that  the  debate  need  not  occupy  six  weeks,  and 
asked  you  what  about  closing,  and  knowing  your  zeal  in  disputation,  and  remember- 
ing how  you  enjoy  burying  your  opponents  "live  miles  deep,"  I  playfully  said  that 
if  you  printed  my  two-column  article  without  reply,  it  would  end  the  debate.  Of 
■course  it  would.  I  am  sorry  I  did  not  make  the  pleasantry  plainer.  My  letter, 
however,  which  you  entirely  misinterpret,  could  not  have  influenced  you  to  close, 
us  it  did  not  reach  you  until  Wednesday,  and  your  article  entitled  "Dr.  Gray's 
Fourth  and  Last  Article"  was  written  and  in  print  and  sent  to  me  on  Monday,  and 
■was  in  my  hands  on  Tuesday  morning  at  nine  o'clock,  the  day  before  you  received 
my  letter,  as  you  will  see  by  examining  postmarks  and  dates.  Your  article  was  in 
print  and  a  copy  sent  to  me  before  my  letter  was  written.  The  difficulty,  however, 
is  not  serious,  as  fortunately  we  are  agreed  in"one  important  particular.  We  both 
want  to  go  on.  You  have  more  material  and  so  have  I.  Now,  therefore,  suppose 
you  work  up  your  reserve  material  of  which  you  speak,  for  it  would  be  a  serious 
misfortune  to  have  what  you  have  gathered  lost  in  the  dusty  pigeon-holes  or  the 
capacious  waste-basket  of  the  Interior  office.  I  have,  another  article  in  type,  pre- 
pared nearly  two  weeks  ago,  and  as  we  both  want  to  go  on,  and  that  you  may  have 
both  articles  before  you,  I  print  it  herewith.    You  can  reprint  it  in  the  Interior  and 


[36] 

reply  to  both  at  once.     After  your  reply  to  me  and  my  reply  to  you,  it  is  probable 
that  we  can  close  tbe  debate.  E.  R.  Monfort. 

Dr.  Gray,  in  publishing  tbe  above  in  the  Interior,  made  the  following  comment: 
Dr.  Monfort's  letter  was  mislaid,  or  went  into  the  waste.     My  recollection  of  the  matter  is  as  I 
gave  it,  and  if  it  was  worth  while,  I  would  give  what  appears  to  me  to  be  confirmatory  circum- 
stances— but  the  matter  is  of  no  importance  (note  6).  G. 


XVII. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  January  19,  1887. 

ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

ONLY   THIS   AND   NOTHING   MORE. 

Dr.  E.  R.  Monfort,  Editor  Herald  and  Presbyter: — 

Dear  Brother: — I  am  woefully  afraid  that  our  readers  are  bored  with  this 
elder-moderator  debate — but  as  my  Cincinnati  friend  insists  that  he  was  only 
indulging  in  a  pleasantry  in  suggesting  a  close,  I  beg  indulgence  for  one  more 
article,  and  I  also  beg  the  favor  of  a  reading  of  it.  I  have  not  paid  attention  to 
Dr.  Monfort's  constant  contradictions — leaving  them  for  the  reader  to  mark  and 
pass  upon — preferring  to  employ  my  opportunity  to  lay  the  truth  of  Scripture  and 
of  justice  ami  of  honorable  dealing  before  the  readers  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter. 
Let  me  now  notice  a  few  of  the  Doctor's  contradictions  and  absurdities. 

He  cites  Dr.  Hodge's  opinions  against  the  elders.  I  can  cite  a  minister  of 
national  fame,  of  unquestionable  orthodoxy  and  piety — Dr.  Dabney,  of  South  Caro- 
lina —who  is  still  denouncing  the  act  of  "robbing  us  of  our  lawful  bondmen."  Caste 
never  relinquishes  its  claims  so  long  as  they  will  hold. 

Dr.  Monfort  has  seemed  to  regard  it  as  his  duty  to  contradict  any  historical  fact 
I  referred  to.  He  admits  that  "Prelacy  was  strongest  at  first"  in  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  but  affirms  that  "there  was  no  compromise."  Every  minister  and  other 
reader  of  ecclesiastical  history  knows  that  Dr.  Monfort  here  denies  an  absolute  his- 
torical fact;  and  every  person  of  ordinary  intelligence  knows  that  such  a  work 
could  not  have  been  performed  by  men  of  conflicting  views  without  compromising. 

The  attempt  to  discredit  the  precedents  of  Elder-moderators  Buchanan  and 
Bruce  is  in  the  same  partisan  spirit.  There  they  stand,  facts.  "The  law  of  the  Church 
is  against  it."  If  so,  the  law  is  a  dead  letter.  The  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church  are  denied  any  weight  as  interpreters  of  the  "Form  of  Government," 
because  they  split  off  from  us.  Dr.  Monfort  is  therefore  an  infallible  interpreter  of 
law,  because  he  is  in  our  Church,  and  the  two  thousand  more  or  less  Cumberland  min- 
isters are  legal  addle-heads!  The  overtures  relieve  an  elder-moderator  of  strictly 
ministerial  duties,  and  yet  the  Pan  Presbyterian  Council  elder-moderators  are  no  pre- 
cedent. The  last  Assembly  passing  the  overtures  almost  unanimously,  and  the  forty 
more  or  less — of  presbyteries  who  have  elected  elder-moderators  count  for  nothing 
against  Dr.  Monfort's  obiter  dicta.  The  question,  "What  shall  we  do  in  the  approach- 
ing reunion  with  our  disfranchised  elders?"  he  does  not  answer.  He  can  not,  one 
would  imagine,  have  the  impudence  to  demand  the  disfranchisement  of  the  Southern 
elders.  And  yet,  if,  as  he  has  said,  the  ministers  for  whom  he  speaks  will  go  to 
Rome  or  to  Brownism,  rather  than  submit  to  an  elder-moderator ;  then,  of  course, 
they  would  split  the  Church,  and  defeat  reunion  rather  than  recognize  the  elders. 

Dr.  Monfort  does  not  hesitate  to  put  his  ready  contradiction  against  a  shelf-full 
of  Greek  lexicons.  I  said  that  "proistemenas" —rule,  "elders  who  rule  well,"  from 
which  the  Methodist  presiding  elder,  means  to  preside — to  be  set  over.  "No," 
savs  Dr.  Monfort,  "the  idea  of  moderatorship  is  not  in  the  word."  The  word  is. 
defined  in  Thayer's  Greek  Lexicon,  "to  be  over,  to  superintend,  to  preside  over;" 
in  Robinson's  Greek  Lexicon,  "to  be  over,  to  preside,  to  rule;"  in  Liddell  and 
Scott's,  "to  set  before  or  in  front,  to  manage,  regulate,  govern"    (note  7). 

If  he  quibbles  on  the  word  "moderator,"  I  refer  to  Webster. 

Dr.  Monfort  says  there  never  was  an  elder  before  Christ  whose  rule  was  confined 
to  spiritual  things!  Under  Egypt,  Philistia,  Syria,  Babylon  and  Rome,  the  Hebrew 
elders  had  no  shadow  of  a  civic  rule — none  when  Christ  came,  and  yet  they  ruled 


[37] 

and  taught.  Thus  Dr.  Monfort  goes  right  along  contradicting  the  plainest  facta 
wiili  the  regularity  and  solemnity  of  a  katydid.  A  badger  in  a  barrel  can  do  that, 
and  with  equal  sense  and  reasonableness.  "The  synagogue  was  not  a  divine  insti- 
tution," he  says,  "but  only  a  wise  expedient  to  preserve  what  was  Jewish."  The 
sanctuaries  of  the  Church  of  God  in  which  his  law  was  read,  his  word  preached, 
and  It  is  praise  sung,  were  only  human  expedients  to  preserve  what  was  Jewish  I  Of 
coarsej  then,  the  local  churches  of  God  now  are  only  human  expedients  to  preserve 
what  is  English,  Irish  or  Dutch — as  the  case  may  be!  If  so  good  an  authority  as  the 
apostle  James  would  not  meet  with  a  contradiction  or  an  irrelevant  remark,  I  would 
quote  him  to  show  that  the  synagogue  did  not  even  lose  its  distinctive  name,  much 
Uss  its  bench  of  elders,  when  it  became  a  Christian  church.  James  calls  the  Chris- 
tian churches  "synagogues"  (James  ii.  2)  (note  8). 

1  was  disposed  to  say  that  the  most  ridiculous  contradiction  in  the  lot  (but  they 
are  all  of  the  same  character)  is,  that  elders  are  now  equal  to  ministers  in  rulership 
in  our  church  courts.  Look  at  the  Minutes  and  begin  anywhere — 1871-2-3-4,  on 
:  i  1  386;  the  moderators  and  all  the  executive  officers  are  ministers  in  every  one  of 
them.  The  chairmanships  and  the  majorities  of  all  the  committees  in  the  hands  of 
the  ministers,  except  mileage  and  finance — two  slavish  jobs,  which  ought  to  be  paid 
for.  (The  committees  on  records  have  a  minister-chairman  and  usually  one  elder.) 
There  is  not  a  scrap  of  legislation,  or  of  proceeding  of  any  kind,  that  is  not  in  the 
hands  of  the  ministers  by  chairmanships  and  majorities — Home  Missions,  Foreign 
Missions,  all  the  boards,  all  bills,  overtures,  elections,  everything.  There  have 
been  a  few  rare  exceptions  to  this — just  enough  to  show  that  this  contumelious  and 
contemptible  humiliation  of  the  elders  has  no  justification  in  law  or  in  any  necessity. 
There  are  very  few  Americans  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  this  system  of  parlia- 
mentary discrimination  wipes  out  the  eldership  as  a  potential  part  of  the  Assembly. 
No  man  with  knowledge  and  truthfulness  will  deny  it.  No  man  with  a  shadow  of 
a  sense  of  either  justice  or  shame  will  attempt  to  justify  it.  The  fact  that  the 
objections  invented  and  trumped  up  against  the  elder-moderatorship  have  no  merit 
in  them  is  absolutely  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  elders  are  rigorously  excluded  from 
the  chairmanships  of  important  committees.  This  shows  that  this  tyrannical  pro- 
scription is  not  based  on  the  reasons  alleged,  which  were  not  made  to  tit  chair- 
manships. 

But  let  me  proceed  with  these  bundles  of  blunders  called  arguments.  The 
good  Doctor  says  :  "I  knew  my  reference  to  a  'call  to  the  ministry'  would  puzzle 
you"  [me].  Eight  for  once;  I  did  not  know  which  it  had  in  it  the  most  of,  sin  or 
of  folly. 

I  knew  my  reference  to  a  "call  to  the  ministry"  would  puzzle  you.  You  have  practically  de- 
nied that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  call  to  the  ministry,  by  spreading  it  out  equally  and  very  thin. 
alike  over  ministers,  elders  and  private  members. 

Put  that  against  1  Cor.  xii.  3-11.  Every  gift  and  call  of  God  is  here  stated, 
placed  on  an  equality  of  authority  and  attributed  to  the  "self-same  Spirit  dividing 
to  every  man  severally  as  he  will." 

And  see  how  it  annihilates  the  statement  that  the  elders  do  not  represent  God, 
but  only  the  people: 

And  God  [not  man,  remember,]  has  set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets, 
thirdly  teachers;  alter  that  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of 
tongues. — i  Cor.  xii.  28. 

"Governments;"  if  that  means  elders,  it  must  mean  both  ministers  and  elders,  as 
both  govern.  But  this  lets  us  slide  into  the  "Form  of  Government,"  nearly  the 
whole  of  which  we  have  had  to  print  in  giving  place  to  Dr.  Monfort's  articles. 
The  proof-texts  everywhere  recognize  the  ruling  elders  as  New  Testament  presby- 
ters— "elders  who  rule  well,"  "them  which  labor  among  you  and  are  over  you  in 
the  Lord,"  "they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account."  We  must 
construe  the  subordinate  to  agree  with  the  supreme  standard,  not  ridiculously  the 
reverse.  Then,  having  shown  that  there  was  but  one  order  of  presbyters  in  the 
New  Testament,  we  are  forced  to  place  the  same  construction  on  the  "Form  of 
Government." 

He  even  contradicts  me  when  I  quote  verbatim  his  own  words.  Dr.  Humphrey 
had  said  that  no  system  of  church  government  or  polity  can  claim  to  be  jure  divino. 
Monfort  indorsed  that  and  said:   "The  jure  divino   covers   doctrine,   not   church 


[  38  ] 

polity."     When  I  taxed  him  with  it,  he  sung  out:   "Didn't;  I  said:   'In  all  its- 
details.'" 

But  I  piled  up  authorities  till  my  space  was  exhausted,  to  prove,  as  Neander,  the 
great  church  historian,  says,  that  the  idea  of  superior  and  inferior  presbyters,  differ- 
ent orders,  is  "altogether  inadmissible." 

That  the  name  episcopal,  or  bishop,  was  altogether  synonymous  with  that  of  presbyter,  is 
clearly  evident  from  those  passages  of  Scripture  where  both  are  used  interchangeably.  .  .  . 
Even  were  the  name  bishop  originally  nothing  more  than  a  distinctive  title  of  president  of  this 
church-senate,  of  a  primus  inter  pares  (first  among  equals),  yet  even  in  this  case  such  an  inter- 
change would  be  altogether  inadmissible. — Neander  s  General  History,  Vol.  I.,  p.  256. 

And  not  a  Presbyterian  theological  professor  or  other  non-prelatical  scholar  in 
America  or  Europe  can  be  quoted  to  the  contrary.  Monfort's  two-order  idea  is 
laughed  at  in  Lane  Seminary,  within  a  few  hundred  yards  of  his  house.  That  is 
not  the  way  the  prelacy  parties  get  rid  of  the  eiders.  They  simply  deny  that  Pres- 
byterian elders  are  in  any  sense  New  Testament  presbyters.  But  perhaps  Dr.  Mon- 
fort  thinks  he  can  overturn  the  unanimous  verdict  of  scholarship  on  this  subject  by 
eisegeting  two  orders  into  the  New  Testament  text  itself.  Let  us  see  him  try  his 
hand  at  it.     Here  is  the  apostle  James : 

Is  any  sick  among  you  ?  let  him  send  for  the  elders  of  the  church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him, 
anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. — James  v.  14. 

The  apostle  must  have  had  some  spite  at  that  man  or  order  with  "higher  author- 
ity," if  there  were  any  such  being;  he  does  not  even  condescend  to  notice  him. 
And  from  Miletus  he  [Paul]  sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the  elders  of  the  church. — Acts  xx.  17. 
And  in  his  tender  interview  with  them  lie  said : 

Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  you  overseers  to  teed  the  Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood. 

Wonder  what  the  "higher-authority"  man  at  Ephesus,  if  there  were  one,  had 
done,  that  Paul  sat  down  on  him  in  silent  contempt?  Why  didn't  he  write  to  him: 
"Dear  Bro.  Philo,  come  to  Miletus  and  bring  your  elders  with  you"  ? 

Observe  that  the  commission  given  by  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  elders  was  precisely 
that  given  by  Christ  to  Peter:  "Feed  my  sheep;"  "Feed  the  Church  of  God." 
Peter  gives  the  same  commission  to  elders  generally,  saying:  "Feed  the  flock  of 
God."  There  is  no  possibility  of  overthrowing  my  position  on  these  texts;  and,  as 
I  have  said,  no  scholar  of  repute  in  the  world  lias  ever  attempted  it.  The  Romanist 
or  Anglican  would  promptly  answer  me:  "All  true,  but  your  Presbyterian  elders 
are  not  true  elders;  you  are  not  in  the  apostolic  succession."  The  Presbyterian 
prelatist,  if  he  have  any  sense  of  his  position,  says  the  same — that  our  elders  are 
not  of  the  order  whom  Peter  and  Paul  were  addressing;  are  not  scriptural  elders, 
but  are  a  human  after-thought  expedient — not  jure  divino,  but  jure  humano — jure- 
tom-dick-and-harry-o  I 

Acts  xv.:  The  meeting  of  the  presbyters  of  the  apostles  and  elders  in  Jerusalem — 
why,  that  supposed  superior  personage  did  not  even  put  in  for  the  moderatorship  I 
He  would  have  been  there  sure,  if  he  had  yet  materialized,  and  had  thought  that 
Barnabas  would  give  him  a  good  send-off  for  that  office  in  his  paper. 

Acts  xi.  30:  The  Greeks  sent  supplies  to  the  elders  for  the  famine-stricken.  An- 
other slight  to  the  elder-bosser — if  there  were  one. 

1  Timothy  v.  1:  "Rebuke  not  one  elder,  but  entreat  him  as  a  brother."  Was 
not  that  rather  hard  on  the  superior  order — not  even  to  be  permitted  to  abuse  their 
subordinates,  if  they  had  any! 

No,  sir.  The  devil  of  the  hierarchy  had  not  then  appeared  in  the  Church— nor 
for  near  an  hundred  years  afterward.  The  elders  were  not  even  yet  differentiated 
by  their  work  so  as  to  be  designated  as  ruling  and  preaching  elders. 

Of  course  Dr.  Monfort  can  explain  how  it  happens  that  there  is  not  a  syllable  nor 
an  inference  in  favor  of  his  two  orders  in  the  New  Testament.  He  will  send  us 
another  edition  [of  the  Form  of  Government  to  print!  or  a  section  of  Princeton 
ex-cathedra  dogmatisms  !— but  he  will  not  find  a  Princetonian  who  will  indorse  his 
ridiculous  notion.  They  have  some  pride  of  scholarship  down  there  under  their 
silken  gowns. 

But  one  more  of  Dr.  Monfort's  badger-in-a-barrel  contradictions.  Some  months 
ago  Elder  Lowrie  sent  me  a  copy  of  the  Presbyterian,  December  9,  1843,  contain- 
ing Dr.  Breckinridge's  magnificent  argument  for  the  official  equality  of  elders  with 


[39] 

ministers,  delivered  before  llie  Synod  at  Baltimore  on  the  laying-on-of-hands  ques- 
tion. This  Led  nit'  to  look  up  his  "Collected  Writings,"  where  1  found  the  same 
statements  that  were  made  in  his  address.  I  also  knew  that  Dr.  Thornwell  had 
annihilated  Dr.  Hodge's  position,  which  is  only  saved  from  prelacy  by  a  denial 
of  true-presbyter  office  to  the  elders, — so  I  looked  him  up  and  quoted  from  both 
the  principles  applied  to  the  eldership  question.  Of  course  Dr.  Monfort  had  to 
contradict  me.  There  was  not  any  sense  in  the  contradiction,  because  facts  and 
principles  do  not  change  by  being  applied  to  different  questions,  and  it  made  no 
difference  for  what  purpose  Drs.  Breckinridge  and  Thornwell  had  used  them,  pro- 
vided they  were  true.  It  is  evident  that  Dr.  Monfort  knew  no  more  about  the 
facts  when  he  twice  contradicted  me,  and  said  that  the  question  was  "prelacy  on 
the  one  hand  and  independency  on  the  other" — knew  no  more  about  the  facts  than 
a  badger-in-a-barrel — or  he  would  not  have  put  Ins  own  father,  Dr.  J.  G.  Monfort, 
among  the  "  prelatists"  (note  9).  The  latter,  a  few  years  ago,  attacking  me  on  the 
elder-inoc.erator  question,  referred  to  the  movement  led  by  Drs.  Breckinridge  and 
Thornwell,  and  said: 

We  had  a  sharp  debate,  twenty  years  ago,  as  to  whether  elders  shou.d  lay  on  hands  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  ministers.  It  was  settled  in  the  negative.  The  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  elders  being 
moderators  contains  .about  one-tenth  of  the  old  elder  question,  and  it  will  not  require  a  tenth  of 
the  lime  to  dispose  of  it. 

And  now  his  blundering  son  rises  up  and  calls  his  old  father  a  "prelatist !" 
And  so  good-by,  Elias !    Long  life,  prosperity,  peace,  earthly  happiness  and  heav- 
enly joy  be  yours.  Wm.  C.  Gray. 

XVIII. 

"Herald  and  Presbyter,"  January  19,  1886. 

THE  ELDER-MODERATOR  QUESTION. 

Dr.  W.  C  Gray,  Editor  of  the  Interior: — 

Dear  Brother: — The  title  of  your  article,  "Only  This  and  Nothing  More," 
indicates  that  you  are  still  anxious  to  close  the  debate.  I  am  sorry  for  this,  but 
more  sorry  to  read  your  announcement  that  you  have  "condensed  into  one  solid 
little  treatise"  your  argument  on  the  elder-moderator  question,  taken  partly  from 
the  debate  and  partly  not,  which  you  propose  to  circulate.  You  can  not  have  for- 
gotten that  when  you  visited  us,  and  we  concluded  our  arrangements  for  the  debate, 
you  proposed  that  we  publish  the  discussion  in  pamphlet  form,  and  you  would 
unite  with  us  in  payment  of  the  expense.  You  were  then  hopeful  that,  although 
elders,  we  would  be  able  to  produce  arguments  worthy  of  being  read  and  preserved. 
This  suited  me  then,  and  suits  me  better  now,  as  the  discussion  is  closing.  I  sup- 
pose I  could  also  condense  a  statement  of  my  views  "in  one  solid  little  treatise,"  as 
I  have  been  urged  to  do,  and  sell  it  or  give  it  away,  but  it  would  better  aid  the 
views  I  hold,  to  print  and  circulate  the  whole  discussion,  and  that,  I  suppose,  is 
what  will  have  to  be  done,  if  there  is  a  call  for  it  (note  10). 

2.  You  still  claim  that  prelatists  diluted  our  Form  of  Government.  I  have  shown 
this  to  be  an  error.  In  making  the  charge,  you  assert  that  our  Book  is  unscriptural, 
and  this  has  been  your  burden  throughout.  You  even  made  light  of  my  scriptural 
argument  in  its  favor,  and  of  my  claim  that  the  meaning  of  the  terms  minister  and 
ruling  elder  in  the  overtures  we  were  discussing  and  in  the  Form  of  Government 
must  be  the  same,  and  you  paid  no  attention  to  my  application  of  the  proposition. 
You  have  treated  our  Book  as  of  no  authority,  and  you  twit  me  now  for  making 
you  "reprint  nearly  the  whole  of  it,"  while  I  have  not  quoted  four  of  its  fifty-six 
pages. 

3.  Your  scriptural  argument  has  proved  a  failure.  There  was  really  no  call  for 
a  scriptural  argument,  as  Dr.  R.  W.  Patterson  shows.  It  was  taken  for  granted  by 
the  Assembly,  in  sending  down  the  overture,  that  our  system  is  biblical.  It  was 
because  you  defied  Dr.  Ritchie,  Dr.  Patterson  and  the  editors  of  this  paper  to  pr  >- 
duce  an  argument  from  the  Bible,  that  I  sent  you  the  propositions  to  discuss  the 
matter  in  the  two  papers,  being  also  myself  an  elder.  Under  pressure  from  you,  I 
presented  a  Bible  argument.  I  showed  that  Old  Testament  elders  were  not  teach- 
ers; that  Christ  on  eartb,  as  prophet,  priest  and  king  and  the  antitype  of  Jewish 


[40] 

prophets,  priests  and  rulers,  claimed  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  appointed  his 
apostles  with  all  power  as  his  representatives  and  witnesses,  and  that  they  appointed 
their  successors  to  the  ministry,  and  that  the  New  Testament  Church  is  in  its  offices 
what  they  made  it.  To  this  you  do  not  reply,  but  content  yourself  by  asserting 
that  all  elders  from  Abraham  to  Christ,  Jewish  and  outside,  were  teachers  and 
preachers,  and  the  only  semblance  of  proof  you  give  is  that,  under  the  influence  of 
a  miracle  (Num.  xi-  25),  the  seventy  elders  prophesied,  which  no  commentator 
explains  as  making  them  preachers,  but  only  inspiring  them  with  hope  and  zeal 
and  courage  for  their  work  as  rulers.  You  have  spoken  of  Jewish  elder-modera- 
tors, but  have  failed  to  show  that  any  of  them  ever  presided  over  a  deliberate  body, 
much  less  a  spiritual  court.  You  claim  that  the  root  of  the  term  elder  means  pre- 
side. Then  every  elder  presides  all  the  time.  You  again  quote  several  passages  of 
Scripture,  but  fail  to  show  that  they  have  any  relevancy.  Your  quotation  (1  Cor. 
xii.  28)  to  show  that  ministers  and  elders  are  gifts  of  the  same  Spirit  does  not 
prove  that  they  are  the  same  gifts.  The  context  makes  the  gifts,  the  offices  and  the 
duties  diverse.  You  give  incorrectly  (1  Tim.  v.  1),  "Rebuke  not  an  elder,  but 
entreat  him  as  a  father,"  and  say,  "Was  not  this  hard  on  the  superior  order,  not  to 
be  able  to  abuse  their  subordinates"?  I  answer,  No.  For  elders,  although  of  a 
different  order,  are  not  subordinates.  This  passage  is  Paul's  advice  to  a  young 
minister.  It  certainly  indicates  two  orders,  and  advises  respectful  treatment  of  one 
order  bv  the  other,  as  is  common  in  our  Church.  You  speak  of  the  presbytery  of 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xv. ),  where  "the  superior  personages  did  not  even  put  in  for  the 
modera  orship."  In  a  presbytery  composed  of  apostles  and  elders,  the  apostles  are 
the  ministers,  and  so  when  "the  disciples"  (not  the  Greeks,  as  you  say),  sent  their 
contributions  to  tlie  elders  in  Judea,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  the)7  slighted  any 
"elder  bossers."  Very  few  of  the  churches  in  Judea  had  ministers,  and  if  they 
had,  their  ministers  were  elders.  This  also  explains  why  James  said,  "Send  for 
the  elders  of  the  Church,"  and  why  Paul  told  the  elders  of  Ephesus  "to  feed  the 
(lunch  (jf  God."  Whether  they  had  or  had  not  a  pastor,  they  were  bishops.  I 
fullv  agree  with  Neander  that  elders  and  overseers  (bishops)  are  used  interchange- 
ably, whether  applied  to  preaching  elders  or  ruling  elders.  The  sheep  of  God's 
pasture  need  not  only  preaching  and  the  sacraments,  but  the  nurture,  counsel, 
admonition,  reproof,  rebuke  and  censure,  which  elders  are  ordained  to  furnish. 
The  advice  of  Paul  was  good  for  Peter  and  every  preaching  and  ruling  elder.  I 
see  nothing  in  all  your  Bible  references  to  show  that  elders  were  ministers  or  mod- 
erators, or  to  justify  you  in  calling  our  ministers  "elder  bossers,"  or  charging  that 
"the  devil  of  the  "hierarchy  is  in  our  Church."  Your  violent  dealing  will  come 
down  upon  your  own  head.  Ministers  and  elders  opposing  you  are  only  claiming 
that  their  offices,  duties,  functions  and  ordination  are  not  the  same.  Your  treat- 
ment of  ministers  is  uncalled  for  and  revolutionary. 

4.  I  must  again  answer,  and  more  fully,  your  misstatement  of  the  views  of  Drs. 
Breckinridge  and  Thornwell.  What  you  quote  from  Dr.  Breckinridge,  which  was 
emphatically  indorsed  by  Dr.  Thornwell,  in  extracts  from  both,  quoted  by  me, 
was  written  in  favor  of  the  parity  of  the  ministry  and  against  prelacy,  but  not  in 
favor  of  identity  of  the  ministry  and  ruling  eldership.  He  makes  ministers  and 
elders  of  one  order  as  Rulers,  using  a  big  R.     Dr.  Breckinridge  says: 

These  presbyters,  elders,  are  all  of  one  order,  all  equal  in  dignity,  rank  and  authority  fts  Rulers; 
but  that  order  is  divided  into  two  classes,  of  which  one  labor  in  word  and  doctrine,  and  are  stew- 
ards of  the  mysteries  of  God,  in  which  additional  functions  all  this  class  I  ministersi  are  also  of 
equal  rink,  authority  and  dignity,  one  with  another;  the  class  to  which  each  particular  presbyter 
belong    being  determined  by  vocation  and  ordination. 

All  agree  that  in  rukrxhip  the  order,  class,  rank,  are  the  same,  for  order,  AVebster 
savs.  means  class.  Dr.  Breckinridge  might  as  well  have  said  they  are  the  same  class 
biit  <  f  different  orders.  He  certainly  makes  the  offices  different,  as  does  our  Form 
of  Government,  and  he  distinguishes  them  by  vocation  and  ordination.  Your 
quibbling  over  the  word  order,  which  means  something  derived  from  ordination, 
and  happens  to  be  used  by  prelatists  to  express  disparity  of  the  ministry,  is  darken- 
ing counsel  bv  words.  It  matters  not  whether  the  difference  in  office,  function  and 
duty  is  expressed  by  order,  or  class,  or  rank,  or  sort.  The  difference  is  real  and 
important.  You  deny  it,  and  make  the  offices  one,  and  on  their  identity  alone  base 
your  argument  for  the  overtures.  It  is  true  that  Drs.  Breckinridge  and  Thornwell 
were  in  favor  of  elders  laying  on  hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers;  not  on  the 


[41  ] 

ground,  however,  of  sameness  of  office,  but  on  the  ground  that  the  ordination  of  a 
minister  is  the  act  of  presbytery  as  a  unit.  The  majority,  however,  held  tbat  the 
'ordination  at  a  minister  is  an  administrative  or  executive  and  ministerial  act,  and 
that  tlie  office  of  the  ministry  is  a  unit,  and  that  ministerial  functions  can  only  be 
conferred  and  transferred  by  those  who  possess  them.  If  the  majority  were  right, 
much  less  can  an  elder  preside  and  make  the  prayer  of  ordination  of  a  minister. 
The  views  of  the  majority  were  well  expressed  in  the  Assembly  of  1843  by  Chan- 
cellor Johns,  one  of  the  most  eminent  elders  and  jurists  of  the  country.     He  says: 

The  Constitution  of  our  Church  confers  upon  its  officers  three  kinds  of  powers— legislative, 
judicial  and  ministerial.  The  ruling  elders  are  clothed  by  the  Constitution  with  the  first  two— 
legislative  and  judicial— and  carry  with  them  nothing  else,  place  them  where  you  may  Look  at 
your  elder  in  the  lower  court— the  church  session.  He  sits  there  as  a  legislator  and  a  judge,  but 
the  moment  you  have  to  execute  the  sentence  which  is  passed  in  the  court,  it  devolves  on  your 
minister  as  the  executive.  Trace  the  elder  to  the  presbytery  or  synod;  there  he  appears  as  the 
representative  of  the  church,  but  only  with  legislative  and  judicial  powers.  Jt  is  clear  that  the 
moment  you  decide  that  ordination  is  a  ministerial  or  executive  act,  that  moment  you  decide  that 
it  must  be  performed  by  those  possessing  ministerial  or  executive  authority.  1  he  execution  ot 
the  acts  necessarily  devolves  on  the  competent  parts  of  the  body.  Unless  you  make  an  e'd?1'  a 
minister  at  once,  1  never  can  admit  that  he  can  perform  an  act  belonging  to  the  ministerial  office. 
This  distinction  unlocks  the  whole  difficulty.  On  this  principle  the  presbytery  gives  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  "to  take  part  of  this  ministry  with  us."  But  ruling  elders  are  not  in  the 
ministry,  and  therefore  even  this  act  does  not  belong  to  them. 

5.  You  say  of  me,  "He cites  Dr.  [Charles]  Hodge  against  the  elders."  I  do  not. 
I  cite  him  against  you,  and  in  favor  of  the  elders.  The  elders  never  had  a  better 
friend,  or  one  more  appreciative  of  the  character  and  work  of  the  eldership,  or 
one  whose  teachings  on  the  subject  are  held  by  more  ministers.  You  refer  to  what 
Dr.  Hodge  taught  as  at  par  with  the  spirit  of  a  Southern  minister  of  high  stand- 
ing, who  you  say  "is  still  denouncing  the  act  of  robbing  us  of  our  bondmen.  Caste 
never  relinquishes  its  claims  so  long  as  they  will  hold."  You  ought  to  know  that 
Dr.  Hodge  never  taught  nor  acted  as  if  ruling  elders  were  bondmen,  nor  ever  man- 
ifested the  spirit  of  caste.  In  this,  and  this  sort  of  invective,  in  whichyou  have 
cften  indulged,  you  have  weakened  your  cause  very  seriously.  Not  one  Princetonian 
in  a  score  will  vote  for  your  overture,  and  the  pupils  of  Dr.  Shedd,  who  indorses 
Dr.  Hodge  with  emphasis,  will  fail  you  in  the  same  degree.  In  denouncing  Dr. 
Hodge,  you  open  the  door  for  me  to  quote,  as  I  do  at  some  length,  from  his  writings  i 
on  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  ruling  elders  in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  in  which 
he  was  sustained  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  of  the  Old  and  New  School  Assem- 
blies, and  their  decisions  have  been  acquiesced  in  ever  since,  and  are  declared  to 
have  always  been  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  and  of  all  Reformed  churches.  That 
discussion  settled  the  elder-moderator  question;  for  if  elders  can  not  lay  on  hands 
as  members  of  presbytery  in  the  ordination  of  ministers,_  much  less  can  they  as 
moderators  make  the  "prayer  of  ordination  and  confer  ministerial  functions,  or  do 
anything  as  moderators  requiring  ministerial  powers  or  authority.  Incidentally, 
also,  these  extracts  sustain  my  use  of  the  terms  clergy  and  laity,  the  word  order, 
my  denial  of  the  degradation  of  elders  by  ministers,  my  charge  that  your  views 
must  lead  to  independency  or  prelacy,  and  my  claim  that  ministerial  ordination  is 
not  the  same  with  that  of  ruling  elders.  Now  read  Dr.  Hodge,  whose  little  finger 
was  thicker  than  your  loins  or  mine.     Here  is  what  he  says : 

By  teaching  that  elders  and  ministers  are  of  the  same  order,  it  merges  into  one  office  what  our 
Constitution  and  the  word  of  God  declare  to  be  distinct. 

To  affirm  that  both  classes  of  offices  are  in  the  same  sense  representative,  is  to  destroy  the  pe- 
culiar distinctive  character  and  value  of  the  eldership. 

A  man  that  is  ordained  a  ruling  elder  does  not  become  a  presbyter,  so  as  not  to  need  ordination 
by  a  presbytery  when  he  becomes  a  minister.  _ 

This  new  doctrine,  if  we  may  learn  anything  from  history,  must  either,  in  virtue  of  its  making 
«lders,  bishops  and  ministers,  and  yet  setting  the  pastor  up  as  their  official  superior,  issue  in  prel- 
acy; or,  in  virtue  of  making  both  ministers  and  elders  in  the  same  sense  presbyters  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  issue  in  congregational  independency.  _  . 

How  can  identity  of  office  be  proved  if  it  is  not  established  by  common  designations  and  titles, 
by  common  duties,  by  common  characteristics  and  qualifications  and  by  a  common  ordination  . 

The  same  argument  on  which  so  much  stress  is  laid  would  prove  that  the  elder  might  be  the 
moderator  of  any  of  our  church  judicatories,  and  consequently  open  the  session  with  a  sermon. 
The  book  savs  a  member  shall  preach.     Elders  are  members,  therefore  elders  may  preach. 

The  legitimate  conclusion  from  these  premises  is,  not  only  that  there  is  no  such  scriptural  ottice 
as  that  of  ruling  elder,  but  that  it  should  be  abolished  ;  *  *  *  or  that  the  church  session  must 
:  'vested  with  the  power  of  ordaining  ministers  of  the  gospel. 

While  Presbyterians  have  ever  contended  for  presbyterial  ordination,  they  have  always  con- 
tended for  ministerial  ordination,  and  that  no  case  of  lay  ordination  or  of  an  ordination  in  which. 


[42] 

ruling  elders  participated  has  been  produced,  or,  as  it  is  believed,  can  be  produced  in  the  hi:>tory 
of  any  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  only  satisfactory  or  constitutional  ground  for  the  participation  of  the  elders  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  ministers,  that  can  be,  is  that  they  hold  the  same  office,  that  they  take  part  in  the  same 
ministry;  or,  in  short,  that  elders  are  ministers. 

Are  not  the  ordinations  by  the  ecclesiastical  councils  in  New  England  valid  ?  although  such  coun- 
cils are  not  presbyteries  within  the  definitions  of  our  book  ?  An  affirmative  is  the  only  answer  that 
can  be  given  to  these  questions,  consequently  ordination  is  a  ministerial  act.  It  is  performed  by 
ministers  as  such,  and  not  merely  as  members  of  presbytery. 

The  complaint  that  the  eldership  are  undervalued  and  denied  their  influence  in  the  Church,  is 
one  of  the  most  unfounded  that  can  be  made.  As  far  as  we  have  observed,  it  is  always  the  case 
that,  other  things  being  equal,  the  influence  of  elders  in  our  public  bodies  is  greater  than  that  of 
ministers  And  what  is  much  to  their  credit,  they  have  sense  enough  to  see  and  acknowledge  it. 
These  complaints  of  their  being  undervalued  are  almost  always  from  ministers ;  and  are  to  elders 
themselves  matters  of  surprise,  and  sometimes  of  amusement.  The  true  influence  of  any  set  of 
men  depends,  in  a  great  measure,  on  their  acting  in   their  appropriate  sphere. 

The  iflnuence  of  the  clergy  is  not  to  be  increased  by  their  acting  as  laymen,  nor  that  of  laymen 
by  their  acting  as  clergymen.  The  value  of  the  office  of  the  ruling  elder  we  hold  to  be  inesti- 
mable; but  it  depends  upon  his  being  a  ruling  elder,  with  rights,  duties  and  privileges  distinct 
from  those  of  the  ministry;  on  his  being  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  a  layman  and  not  a 
clergyman. 

6.  In  all  your  charges  touching  the  degradation  of  the  elders  by  ministers,  your 
chief  lamentation  is  that  elders  are  always  put  at  the  tails  of  committees.  This  is 
not  always  so ;  but  when  it  is  so,  is  there  any  explanation,  mitigation  or  justifica- 
tion of  it?   Let  us  see: 

(1.)  In  our  presbytery  there  are  fifty-one  churches  and  fifty-one  sessional  records. 
to  be  examined.  As  our  law  requires  a  minister  to  be  moderator  of  the  session,  and 
it  is  not  yet  proposed  to  change  the  law,  so  the  same  reasons  for  the  law  apply  to  the 
chairmanship  of  the  committee  to  pass  upon  the  records. 

(2.)  We  have  about  a  dozen  committees  to  conduct  examinations  in  presbyteries 
of  candidates  for.  the  ministry  and  report  on  their  trials.  The  examinations  and 
trials  include  call  to  the  ministry,  Latin,  Greek,  Hebrew,  arts  and  sciences,  theology, 
natural  and  revealed,  ecclesiastical  history,  the  sacraments,  church  government, 
Latin  exegesis,  a  lecture  and  a  popular  sermon.  Can  any  one  doubt  that  ministers 
who  have  passed  through  all  these  trials  are  most  suitable  to  lead  in  such  service, 
and  that  the  man  in  the  moderator's  chair  should  be  one  most  suitable  to  preside 
and  decide  as  to  what  questions  are  proper  or  not,  and  see  that  all  is  done  in  order. 
When  you  as  chairman  examine  candidates  for  the  ministry  in  theology,  church  his- 
tory or  church  government,    "may  I  be  there  to  see"   and  hear  and  inwardly  digest. 

(3.)  Then  we  have  other  committees — judicial,  polity,  pastoral  letter  and  nar- 
rative— where,  for  the  same  reasons,  it  is  quite  proper  for  a  minister  to  be  chair- 
man; while  there  are  other  committees  of  which  elders  are  often  chairmen.  In  the 
matter  of  committees  there  i  no  ministerial  despotism,  and  the  charges  made  amount 
to  demanding  of  ministers  that  they  abdicate  all  service  that  implies  functions  and 
duties  that  do  not  belong  to  ruling  elders.  This  is  very  embarrassing  to  ministers, 
and  should  be  rebuked  by  all  considerate  elders  who  hold  the  ministry  in  proper 
esteem.  I  can  not  see  how  an  elder  can  be  jealous  of  the  ministry  in  regard  to 
anything  under  discussion,  unless  he  holds  with  you  that  an  elder  is  a  minister, 
which  is  a  serious  error,  leading  to  independency  or  to  prelacy,  and  the  destruction 
of  presbytery,  which  avoids  both  extremes. 

7.  While  the  Presbyterian  Church  insists  upon  three  distinct  offices  of  our  system, 
and  then  three  distinct  ordinations,  and  then  three  distinct  definitions  of  functions 
and  duty,  every  facility  and  inducement  are  held  out  in  favor  of  lay  labor  and 
instruction.  In  all  our  churches,  60  far  as  I  know,  our  elders  and  others  are  in  the 
habit  of  speaking  in  the  prayer-meeting.  In  the  church  to  which  I  belong  elders 
and  some  others  have  often  been  asked  by  the  pastor  to  prepare  to  speak  on  certain 
subjects,  and  I  doubt  not  this  is  common.  Our  book  recommends  worship  in  vacant 
churches,  and  elders  are  mentioned  as  the  proper  person's  to  conduct  the  services. 
In  mission  chapels  and  churches  the  chief  workers  are  elders  and  other  laymen. 
Many  churches  have  distinct  meetings  under  the  guidance  of  elders.  In  our 
Sabbath-school  institutes  laymen  generally  preside  and  speak.  Meetings  for  wor- 
ship, work  and  instruction  among  women  are  approved  and  encouraged.  Mr. 
Moody  and  his  laborers  are  encouraged  by  our  ministers;  and  our  ministers,  elders 
and  others  work  with  them.  Young  men's  Christian  associations  are  popular  with 
us.  What  more  can  be  done  than  is  done  to  stimulate  elders?  Ministers  can  not 
tell  them  that  they  are  ordained  ministers,  and  ought  to  do  ministerial  work.    There 


[43] 

is  no  such  paralysis  of  the  elders  as  you  vociferate  so  often;  but  there  would  be  if 
the  Church  should  decide  and  declare  that  elders  and  ministers  are  of  the  same 

"sort"  and  have  the  same  duties,     l'aul's  cry  Wamld  he  heard  from  every  elder,  "Who 
is  Sufficient  for  these  things'/" 

S.  1  have  passed  some  things  in  your  article  with  slight  comment,  which  should 
be  subjected  to  adverse  criticism,  such  as  "legal  addle-heads,"  "disfranchised 
elders,"  "tyrannical  proscription,"  "contumelious  and  contemptible  humiliation  of 
elders,"  "jure  toin-diek-and-harry  (),"  "elder  bossers,"  "the  devil  of  the  hier- 
archy," "Princeton  ex-cathedra  dogmatisms,"  "katydid"  and  "badger  in  the 
barrel" — the  last  applied  to  me  three  times.  I  have  collected  all  these  from  your 
last;  audi  doubt  not  everyone  of  these  terms  or  phrases  impressed  our  readers 
unfavorably  and  as  a  sign  of  weakness'.  I  collect  them  from  this  article  alone,  and 
present  them  as  evidence  that  you  have  exhausted  your  logic  and  have  no  other 
resource.  Suppose  you  should  at  some  time  be  made  moderator  and  I  should  be  a 
delegate  and  should  use  such  terms.  I  am  very  sure  you  would  call  me  to  order.  In 
this  discussion  we  have  been  addressing  ten  times  as  many  ministers  and  elders  as 
attend  any. General  Assembly,  and  a  hundredfold  more  of  other  sober  and  sensible 
Presbyterians.  In  such  a  presence,  and  on  a  subject  involving  the  order  and  inter- 
ests of  the  Church,  our  speech  ought  to  "be  with  grace  seasoned  with  salt,"  which 
is  always  becoming  an  editor  of  a  religious  paper  or  an  elder  of  the  Church. 

9.  It  is  very  a  small  matter,  but  I  may  as  well  say  that  your  statement  about  Lane 
Seminary  needs  verification.  If  you  refer  to  the  professors,  I  know  that  three  of 
them  are  opposed  to  the  overtures,  and  it  is  understood  all  are.  "And  Sarah  denied, 
saying,  I  laughed  not." 

10.  The  thought  has  been  constantly  coming  up  to  me,  "What  has  anything  in 
your  article  to  do  with  the  adoption  of  the  overtures?"  You  have  raised  many  side 
issues  which  are  irrelevant,  and  I  have  felt  called  upon  to  answer  because  you  were 
wrong  in  your  reasoning,  and  my  silence  might  be  construed  as  a  concession.  In 
my  article,  several  weeks  ago,  I  gave  eighteen  reasons  why  the  overtures  should  not 
be  adopted.  You  have  not  answered  one,  and  have  scarcely  even  referred  to  any 
of  them.  Now  as  this  debate  draws  to  a  close,  I  am. strengthened  in  my  belief  that 
ours  is  the  true  scriptural  Form  of  Government.  The  apostles  composed  the  first 
presbytery.  They  ordained  the  first  ministers  and  sent  them  out  as  missionaries 
(Acts  xiii.  3;  also  1  Tim.  i.  14).  These  ministers  thus  ordained  established  churches 
and  ordained  elders  in  every  church  (Acts  xiv.  23;  Titus  i.  5),  and  the  ordination 
of  the  elders  was  by  ministers  only.  This  is  the  practice  in  our  Church  to-day.  The 
presbytery  ordains  ministers,  and  ministers  ordain  elders.  Ministers  must,  as 
Timothy  was  told  to  do,  pursue  a  course  of  reading;  must  study  to  show  themselves 
workmen  approved  of  God,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth.  This  preparation 
is  necessary  to  fit  them  for  responsibilities  which  do  not  rest  upon  elders.  The 
bearing  of  this  upon  the  elder-moderator  question  I  have  fully  shown,  and  you 
have  entirely  failed  to  answer  (note  11).  E.  K.  Monfort. 


As  Dr.  Gray  has  published  a  pamphlet  made  up  chiefly  of 
what  he  furnished  in  the  discussion  and  partly  of  neiv  mat- 
ter, I  add  a  fetv  notes,  supplementing  and  making  more  full 
and  clear  some  of  the  points  in  the  discussion.  I  indicate  the 
page  of  the  pamphlet  on  which  sutft,  points  were  before  dis- 
cussed, either  by  Dr.  Gray  or  myself. 

E.  B.  M. 


NOTES. 


1  (see  page  9). — Killing  elder  is  the  distinctive  term  in  our  Form  of  Government 
— in  Chapter  III.,  which  gives  the  offices  of  the  church;  in  Chapter  V.,  in  the  title 
of  the  chapter  and  in  the  definition  of  the  office ;  in  Chapter  IX.,  defining  the 
session;  in  Chapter  X.,  giving  the  members  of  it;  and  in  Chapter  XII.,  providing 
for  the  election  of  ruling  elders.  Sometimes  in  other  chapters  they  are  called 
elders;  but  the  distinctive  name  is  ruling  elder,  and  this  is  the  name  in  the  over- 
tures before  the  Church. 

2  (p.  23). -There  is  no  need  of  the  adoption  of  the  second  overture,  even  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  friends  of  elder-moderatorsbip.  The  first  overture  opens  the 
door  to  elect  a  moderator  in  the  Presbytery,  Synod  or  General  Assembly.  The 
second  overture,  prepared  and  offered  by  Dr.  McLeod,  provides  only  for  an 
elder-moderator  of  the  General  Assembly.  If  there  is  any  need  of  it,  there  should 
be  two  other  overtures,  one  to  allow  our  elders  to  moderate  presbyteries,  and  another 
the  synods.  Many  friends  of  the  first  overture  will  vote  against  the  second,  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  both  defective  and  unnecessary. 

3  (p.  27). — It  is  the  custom  in  many  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  abroad  to 
allow  congregations  to  choose  resident  ministers,  who  are  not  pastors,  to  serve  as 
ruling  elders;  and  when  this  is  done,  they  are  enrolled  in  presbyteries  and  higher 
courts  as  ruling  elders.  Rev.  Dr.  Calderwood  was,  in  the  last  Presbyterian  Alliance 
at  Philadelphia,  enrolled  as  a  ruling  elder ;  but  in  this  respect,  the  custom  and  law  in 
our  Church  are  different.  When  such  ministers  act  as  ruling  elders,  they  retain  all 
their  rights  and  functions,  and  may  properly  be  made  moderators  in  the  session  and 
in  every  other  judicatory. 

4  (p.  32).  — The  worst  part  of  this  elder-moderator  crusade  is  the  oft-repeated 
charge  that  ministers  are  "tyrannically  oppressing  the  eldership;"  "dispossessing 
them  of  all  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  extension  of  Christ's  kingdom;"  "par- 
alyzing a  mighty  and  invincible  army,"  "constantly  telling  them  they  have  no 
important  responsibilities."  If  the  charge  were  true,  that  our.  elders  were  paralyzed 
by  such  oppressions,  no  reason  is  offered  to  prove  that  eligibility  to  the  moderator's 
chair  would  produce  a  change  for  the  better.  For  more  than  three  centuries  the 
custom  has  been  the  same,  and  now  Dr.  Gray  has  found  out  that  eligibility  to  the 
moderator's  chair  will  speedily  remove  a  palsy  that  has  existed  for  a  third  of  a 
millennium.  No  other  remedy  is  proposed  for  the  supposed  evil;  no  proof  is 
offered,  either  in  theory  or  experiment.  Dr.  Gray  seems  to  have  fallen  in  love 
with  the  Fphesian  logic  or  tactics:  Great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians!  Great  is 
■elder-moderatorship ! 


[45] 

5  (p.  33). — Dr.  Gray  closes  his  article  on  page  33  with  a  prayer,  that  God  may 
lead  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  call  her  twenty  thousand  elders  into  the  field  <>{. 
battle.  That  is  precisely  where  they  are;  and  they  are,  to-day,  better  soldiers — 
braver,  more  faithful,  and  having  more  succcess — than  ever  before  Cor  three  hun- 
dred years.  An  humble,  active,  working  elder  can  not  say  amen  to  such  a  prayer  ; 
and  when  such  elders  hear  the  charge  that  ministers  are  guilty  of  degrading  them 
and  repressing  their  zeal,  they  feel  themselves  falsely  characterized.  They  love  and 
trust  their  pastors,  and  look  to  them  for  guidance  and  sympathy;  moreover,  when 
they  are  described  as  inert  and  depressed  and  repressed,  they  feel  that  the  ministry 
is  not  only  falsely  charged,  but  that  they  are  injured  without  deserving  it.  The 
great  majority  repudiate  the  leadership  of  Dr.  Gray,  and  declare  their  preference 
for  the  sympathy  and  counsel  and  guidance  of  their  pastors,  and  the  learned  and 
excellent  men  in  our  theological  seminaries  who  are  appointed  as  teachers  of  the 
doctrines,  duties  and  functions  of  the  office  they  hold. 

ti  (p.  36). — Dr.  Gray  dismissed  my  claim,  that  he  adjourned  the  discussion  by 
calling  his  article  (p.  33)  "Dr.  Gray's  Fourth  and  Last  Article,"  by  saying,  "The 
matter  is  of  no  importance."  To  me  it  was  important,  that  he  acknowledge  my 
statement  to  be  correct  or  disprove  it.  I  have  the  evidence  that  what  I  said  (p..  35) 
was  correct  in  every  particular,  not  only  from  Dr.  Gray's  letters  to  me,  but  also 
from  mine,  which  he  says  "was  mislaid  or  went  into  the  waste."  It  is  quite  needless- 
to  show  that  Dr.  Gray  was  tired  of  the  discussion  then,  and  after  I  asked  to  resume 
it.  He  gave,  as  his  reason  for  the  first  adjournment  that  he  had  grown  sensitive 
lest  the  debate  had  become  tiresome  to  his  and  our  readers;  and  in  the  second 
adjournment,  in  his  last  article,  under  the  caption,  "Only  This  and  Nothing  More," 
he  began  by  saying,  "I  am  woefully  afraid  that  our  readers  are  bored  with  this, 
elder-moderator  debate."  1  had  no  such  fear.  In  the  thousands  of  letters  received 
at  our  office,  only  one  person  complained,  and  not  less  than  a  hundred  expressed 
their  pleasure.  But  as  to  Dr.  Gray's  fear,  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  during  the  week  of 
the  interval  of  the  discussion,  he  gave  nearly  four  and  one-half  columns  to  the 
same  subject,  and  over  three-fourths  of  it  from  his  own  pen;  so  it  was  plain  that 
I  was  the  one  he  feared  was  boring  and  tiring  his  readers,  or  himself.  Since  the 
final  adjournment,  the  Interior  is  heavily  laden  with  the  same  freight. 

7  (p.  36). — Dr.  Gray's  exegesis  of  (1  Tim.  v.  17)  proestotes  will  provoke  many  a 
smile.  He  says  that  "rule  well"  means  preside  well — that  preside  or  moderate  is 
of  the  essence  of  the  elder's  office.  If  so,  the  passage  would  be  properly  rendered: 
Let  the  moderators  that  preside  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially 
the  preacher  elder-moderators.  Well  may  Dr.  John  Robinson  say:  "Poor  Proisiemi! 
Into  what  a  box  have  you  fallen!"  Ruling  is  only  exercising  authority  over  the 
ruled,  whether  chosen  by  them  for  this  purpose  or  so  doing  by  force.  Moderating 
is  only  directing  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  a  body  of  equals.  The  elders'  rule  is 
joint  with  the  session  over  the  congregation,  and  in  higher  courts  over  the  churches 
represented.  The  idea  of  moderating  or  presiding  over  his  equals  is  not  in  the 
term  eld  \"  or  the  term  ruling.  I  doubt  whether  such  exegetical  assumption  was 
ever  before  in  print. 

8  (p.  37). — Dr.  Gray  claims  that  because  in  the  new  translation  of  the  Scriptures 
(James  ii.  2)  synagogue  is  given  as  synonymous  with  assembly,  therefore  the  syna- 
gogue did  not  lose  its  distinctive  name,  which  is,  therefore,  perpetuated;  and,  by 
consequence,  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews  and  its  elders  are  perpetuated  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church — a  Jewish  and  Christian  elder  being  the  same.  Synagogue  in  derivation 
is  Greek,  and  means  brought  together;  assembly  is  Latin,  French  or  Danish,  and 
means  being  together;  congregation  is  Latin,  and  means  herding  together;  conven- 
tion is  Latin,  and  means  coming  together;  association  is  Latin,  and  means  joined 
together.  Any  of  these  words  would  be  a  proper  rendering  of  the  word  sunagoge. 
This  word,  however,  is  not  a  distinctive  New  Testament  term;  but,  rather,  church 
(ekklesia)  is  such,  which  means  called  out  or  called  together.  The  term  church  is 
consistent  with  the  constant  designation  of  Christians  as  the  called.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  light  to  be  found  in  James  ii.  2  to  show  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  synagogue 
and  the  Christian  church,  much  less  to  prove  that  elders  are  preachers  and  needing 
eligibility  to  the  moderatorship  in  order  to  get  rid  of  vis  inertia. 


[46] 

9  (p.  39). — The  allusion  to  Dr.  J.  G.  Monfort,  and  the  allegation  that  I  have 
"put  my  own  father  among  the  prelatists,"  is  very  hard  to  understand.  I  take  it 
to  mean,  that  because  Dr.  J.  G.  Monfort  and  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge  differed  years 
ago  on  the  question  of  the  right  of  elders  to  lay  on  hands  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers,  and  because  I  said  in  the  discussion  that  the  quotation  by  Dr.  Gray  from 
Dr.  Breckinridge's  theology  had  reference  to  the  question  of  the  parity  of  the 
ministry  as  against  prelacy,  and  no  reference  to  the  parity  or  disparity  of  the  min- 
istry and  eldership,  therefore  I  make  Dr.  J.  G.  Monfort  a  prelatist.  By  no  means. 
I  proved  by  quotations  from  Dr.  Breckinridge,  indorsed  by  Dr.  Thornwell,  that  the 
quotations  of  Dr.  Gray  had  reference  to  parity  of  the  ministry,  and  that  Dr.  B.  in 
the  same  context  held  that  ministers  and  elders  were  of  different  classes,  "dis- 
tinguished by  vocation  and  ordination."  Dr.  Gray  made  no  quotation  from  Dr.  B. 
that  had  reference  to  the  controversy  concerning  the  right  of  elders  to  lay  on  hands 
in  t he  ordination  of  ministers,  and  consequently  nothing  bearing  on  the  present 
overtures.  Dr.  B.  and  Dr.  J.  G.  M.  agree  that  ministers  and  elders  are  one  "as 
Rulers"  and  of  two  classes,  because  ministers  are  not  only  rulers,  but  laborers  in 
word  and  doctrine.  Neither  of  them  is  a  prelatist,  and  I  have  not  said  anything 
to  justify  the  assumption. 

10  (p.  39). — As  to  the  publication  of  the  debate,  as  it  occurred,  I  have  stated  the 
case  according  to  the  facts.  I  believe  the  interest  and  effect  of  the  reading  of  the 
whole  discussion  will  be  greater,  than  if  I  had  issued  "one  little,  solid  treatise," 
giving  the  substance  of  my  arguments.  What  I  have  written,  has  been  largely  with 
reference  and  in  answer  to  something  by  Dr.  Gray.  He  is  known  to  be  the  cham- 
pion of  elder-moderatorship,  and  to  have  been  busy  in  the  work  for  ten  years.  He 
is  supposed  to  fully  understand  his  subject,  and  to  be  able  to  vanquish  all  opposers 
of  his  cause.  If  he  has  failed,  the  reader,  who  may  not  have  given  much  attention 
to  the  subject,  will  naturally  conclude  that  Dr.  Gray  is  in  error.  As  I  feel  that  I 
have  conducted  the  discussion  "with  thoroughness  and  fairness,"  as  my  friends 
whose  names  are  on  the  cover  think,  I  am  glad  to  have  all  new  readers  see  the  whole 
discussion  as  it  took  place,  hoping  they  may  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  As  the 
subject  is  new,  in  the  form  it  is  before  the  Church,  the  discussion,  as  a  whole,  may 
be  helpful,  and  it  will  be  suggestive  to  those  who  may  be  inclined  to  pursue  it 
further.  I  have  tried  to  do  my  part  soberly  and  with  fairness,  and  have,  as  I 
believe,  abstained  from  everything,  in  spirit  and  style,  unbecoming  the  importance 
and  sacredness  of  the  interests  under  discussion. 

11  (p.  43). — I  will  add  to  the  views  of  the  paragraph  by  which  I  closed  the  de- 
bate, a  fuller  and  better  statement  of  the  Scripture  basis  of  the  offices  of  ministers 
and  ruling  elders,  from  the  pen  of  Rev.  Dr.  R.  W.  Patterson.  I  do  so  for  the 
reason  that  Dr.  Patterson  was  defied  by  the  Interior,  along  with  Dr.  Ritchie  and  the 
Herald  and  Presbyter,  to  produce  Bible  proof  of  our  positions.  Dr.  Patterson  de- 
clined at  first,  because  the  overtures  of  the  Assembly  do  not  involve  a  Bible  argu- 
ment. He  has,  however,  given  the  Interior  his  views  as  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures,  in  regard  to  the  ministry  and  eldership,  as  follows: 

"I  will  state  in  a  word  what  I  believe,  after  many  years  of  inquiry  and  reflection 
as  well  as  reading.  With  Neander,  Rothe,  Giesler,  King,  of  Scotland,  and  Cole- 
man, of  America,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  local  elders  or  bishops  in  particular 
churches  were  ex-officio  ministers  of  the  word,  although  they  exercised  supervision 
of  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  several  churches,  which  were  at  first  generally 
without  settled  ministers.  And,  therefore,  the  local  elders,  or  bishops,  of  whom 
there  were  several  in  each  church,  were  required  to  be  didactic  men,  fitted  to  give 
instruction,  though  never  spoken  of  as  possessing  or  exercising  the  functions  of 
preaching  or  ordaining.  I  can  not  believe  that  there  were  several  ministers  of  the 
word,  or  ambassadors  of  Christ,  appointed  over  each  church,  when  even  now  it  is 
difficult  to  find  one  suitable  minister  for  every  church.  At  the  same  time  I  believe 
that  there  was  in  apostolic  times  a  class  of  official  men  who  were  at  that  period 
chiefly  occupied  in  preaching  the  gospel,  organizing  churches  and  ordaining  officers 
in  them,  as  well  as  ordaining  others  to  exercise  like  functions;  and  that  these  official 
men  exercised  the  functions  of  preaching,  ordaining  and  administering  the  ordi- 
nances; also,  that  these  men  were  ex-officio  supervisors  of  the  spiritual  interests 


[47  ] 

of  the  churches  at  large,  and  at  first  generally  traveled  from  place  to  place  in  the 
performance  of  their  work,  like  the  early  ministers  in  our  Western  States  and  Terri- 
tories. These  official  men,  1  believe,  were  called  sometimes  ministers  of  Christ, 
sometimes  evangelists,  or  ministers  of  the  gospel,  sometimes  ambassadors  of  Christ, 
and  sometimes  laborers  in  word  and  doctrine.  I  believe  that  the  apostles  were  also 
ministers  of  Christ,  exercising  the  functions  both  of  eye-witnesses  for  Christ  and 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  while  their  assistants,  such  as  Barnabas,  Timothy  and  Titus, 
exercised  only  the  functions  of  the  ministry,  and  the  same  of  their  successors.  I 
believe  that,  when  one  of  these  ministers  was  settled  as  a  pastor  in  a  particular  church 
he  became  the  presiding  elder  or  bishop  of  that  church,  and  one  of  its  rulers  by 
virtue  of  his  pastorate,  but  that  he  still  retained  his  general  relation  to  other 
churches;  and  by  virtue  of  that  relation  he  might  be  called  an  elder,  as  Peter  and 
John  called  themselves;  the  term  "elder"  being  generic,  and  therefore  applicable 
to  any  minister,  as  well  as  to  local  officers  in  particular  churches;  while  the  term 
"bishop"  was  restricted  to  a  local  officer,  and  wras  interchangeable  with  the  term 
"elder"  so  far  as  the  local  ruler  was  concerned,  but  not  interchangeable  with  the 
term  "elder"  as  applied  to  apostles  and  preachers  of  the  word.  I  believe  that  a 
minister  was  such  without  regard  to  any  pastoral  relation,  while  the  local  elder,  or 
bishop,  ceased  to  be  an  officer  in  the  church  if  he  changed  his  residence  from  the 
particular  church  over  which  he  was  appointed  to  another  place,  just  as  the  mayor 
of  Chicago  loses  his  mayoralty  if  he  removes  to  Detroit.  1  believe  that  the  pres- 
bytery by  which  Timothy  was  ordained  was  not  composed  merely  of  the  bishops  of 
a  particular  church,  but  of  ministers,  including  Paul.  With  these  explanations, 
I  now  answer  your  questions.  I  believe  there  was  but  one  class  of  ministers  of 
Christ,  or  preachers  of  the  word,  in  apostolic  times,  and  that  the  local  elders,  or 
bishops,  in  particular  churches  were  not,  as  such,  appointed  to  act  as  ministers  of 
the  gospel.  These  things  I  say,  while  still  holding  that  this  question  was  not  sub- 
mitted to  the  presbyteries  by  the  General  Assembly,  which  did  not  propose  any 
change  in  our  book  with  respect  to  the  two  classes  of  officers  defined  in  Chapters 
IV.  and  V." 

I  append  to  this  Incid  statement  of  Dr.  Patterson,  extracts  from  an  article  in  the 
Philadelphia  Presbyterian,  from  the  pen  of  Rev.  J.  Aspinwall  Ilodge,  D.D.,  of 
Hartford,  Conn.,  who  is  the  author  of  a  standard  work  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,   issued  by  our  Board  of  Publication.     Dr.  H.  says: 

"The  eldership,  which  has  been  permanent  in  the  Church  under  both  dispen- 
sations, requires  no  new  honor,  and  can  receive  no  dignity  by  the  assumption  of 
responsibilities  which  do  not  by  right  belong  to  it.  The  overtures  propose  a  radical 
change  in  our  Constitution,  which,  of  necessity,  involves  some  of  the  important 
principles  of  our  polity.  *  *  *  It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  proposed  change  is 
an  innovation.  The  framers  of  our  Constitution  did  not  intend  that  the  ruling 
elders  should  be  eligible  to  the  moderator's  chair  in  any  of  our  judicatories.  *  *  * 
The  courts,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  are  composed  of  two  distinct  sets  of 
officers,  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  and  their  mutual  relations  are  specified.  Min- 
isters are  the  'first  in  the  church,  both  for  dignity  and  usefulness.'  They  are  the 
'  bishops,'  the  leaders,  the  supervisors  of  every  other  officer  and  of  all  church  oper- 
ations. Before  ordination,  they  are,  therefore,  required  to  endure  a  prescribed 
training,  and  to  pass  an  examination,  not  only  as  to  their  ability  to  teach,  but  also 
'as  to  knowledge  of  the  Constitution,  the  rules  and  principles  of  government  and 
discipline  of  the  church.'  Their  ordination  vows  include  the  'promise  to  be  zealous 
and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel  and  the  purity  and  ponce  of  the 
church.'  The  ruling  elders  are  not  to  be  leaders,  and,  therefore,  no  such  training, 
examination  or  vow  i3  required.  They  are  chosen  for  another  purpose  — 'of  exer- 
cising government  and  discipline,  in  conjunction  with  pastors  or  ministers.'  *  *  *  AVest 
Point  and  Annapolis  are  necessary  to  furnish  leaders  for  the  army  and  navy,  but 
the  under-officers  who  are  to  labor  in  conjunction  with  them,  and  under  their  direc- 
tion, are  not  required  to  attend  those  schools.  *  *  *  It  is  th?refore  necessary, 
as  our  Book  requires,  that  those  who  preside  over  these  judicatories  shall  be  well 
trained  in  the  truth  and  operations  of  tha  kingdom  of  God,  and  in  that  'system  of 
laws'  which  Christ  has  ordained. 

"  The  Form  of  Government  further  emphasizes  the  distinction  between  the  mem- 


[48] 

bers  of  the  judicatories  by  requiring  of  moderators  certain  ministerial  acts,  winch: 
the  ruling  elders  have  no  right  to  perform.  Home  of  these  are  prescribed,  as  the 
opening  of  the  sessions  with  a  sermon  and  the  closing  with  the  apostolic  benediction. 
And  others  are  involved  in  the  functions  of  the  judicatory  of  which  the  moderator 
is  the  representative  and  organ,  the  execution  of  discipline,  the  licensing  of  candi- 
dates, the  ordination  of  ministers,  the  charging  and  welcoming  those  thus  ordained, 
etc.,  in  all  of  which  the  ruling  elder,  because  of  the  nature  of  his  office,  can  not  be 
the  mouthpiece  or  hand  of  the  judicatory.  *  *  *  It  would  be  certainly  very 
improper  and  humiliating  that  the  presiding  officer  should  be  required  to  leave  the 
chair  whenever  the  higher  duties  are  to  be  performed,  and,  indeed,  whenever  any- 
thing is  done  by  the  body  characteristic  of  it  as  an  ecclesiastical  court. 

"It  would  seem  that  this  movement  is  made,  not  because  there  is  a  lack  of  qualified 
ministers,  nor  because  the  elders  are  seeking  the  moderatorship — indeed,  there  are 
very  few  who  would  consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  be  nominated  for  the 
position  were  it  made  lawful — but  because  some  ministers  desire  a  recognition  of  a 
certain  theory  of  the  eldership.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  examine  briefly  what 
is  a  ruling  elder,  according  to  our  Form  of  Government.  'The  pastoral  office  is  the 
first  in  the  church,  both  for  dignity  and  usefulness.  The  person  who  tills  this  office 
hath,  in  the  Scriptures,  obtained  different  names  expressive  of  his  various  duties,' 
all  of  which  indicate  his  relation  to  the  church  as  the  ambassador  and  agent  of 
Christ.  But  'ruling  elders  are  properly  the  representatives  of  the  people,  chosen 
by  them  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  government  and  discipline  in  conjunction 
with  pastors  or  ministers.  This  office  has  been  understood,  by  a  great  part  of  the 
Protestant  Reformed  churches,  to  be  designated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  title 
of  governments,  and  of  those  who  rule  well  but  do  not  labor  in  word  and  doctrine.' 
The  two  offices  are  distinct.  Elders  are  not  ministers.  The  fact  that  Paul  proves 
that  he  was  an  apostle,  and  called  himself  a  minister  and  a  deacon,  does  not  imply 
that  deacons  are  apostles,  nor  that  ruling  elders  are  ministers.  The  higher  may 
include  the  lower,  but  the  reverse  is  not  true.  Elders  are  the  people,  repiesenta- 
tively,  to  act  for  them  and  in  their  name.  This  is  their  true  dignity  and  glory. 
*  *  *  They  are  chosen  by  the  people  to  represent  them  in  all  the  church  courts. 
In  the  Session,  they  represent  the  communicants  and  the  baptized  members;  in  the 
Presbytery  and  Synod,  they  are  delegates  from  the  several  congregations  to  repre- 
sent them;  in  the  General  Assembly  they  are  commissioners,  but  do  not  lose  their 
distinctive  character — they  come,  with  an  equal  number  of  ministers,  to  preserve, 
in  this  highest  court,  the  presence  and  co-operation  of  the  people  in  all  the  work 
and  decisions  of  the  Church.  We  are  not  Congregationalists — holding  that  alL 
church-power  is  vested  in  the  people.  The  elders  can  exercise  government  and 
discipline  only  'in  conjunction  with  pastors  or  ministers.'  In  the  Session  they, 
however  numerous,  can  do  nothing  without  the  minister,  except  in  great  emergencies- 
and  for  routine  business.  In  the  higher  courts,  the  General  Assembly  has  decided 
that  their  absence,  though  much  to  be  regretted,  can  not  prevent  the  transaction  of 
business. 

*  *  *  "  In  ordination  they  are  classed  with  deacons,  and  not  with  ministers. 
The  latter  must  be  set  apart  by  the  Presbytery,  and  in  the  act  of  ordination  the 
elders  can  take  no  part.  Ministers  are  members  of  Presbytery,  are  subject  to  that 
body,  and  over  them  the  Session  has  no  control.  Puling  elders  are  to  be  ordained 
by  one  minister,  they  continue  communicants  of  the  particular  church  and  re- 
sponsible to  the  Session.  Should  any  seek  the  higher  office,  he  must  be  trained  for 
it,  examined  by  the  Presbytery  and  ordained  by  that  body.  This  is  not  a  deprecia- 
tion of  the  eldership,  but  the  exhibition  of  its  real  importance,  responsibility  and 
glory.  To  take  this  from  them,  or  to  ignore  it,  their  chief  characteristic,  is  to  remove 
their  peculiar  honor,  to  destroy  their  usefulness,  to  take  away  the  reason  for  their 
existence  and  to  change  the  significance  and  character  of  our  judicatories.  *  *  * 
And  to  permit  an  elder  to  moderate  the  higher  judicatories,  while  regarded  as  in- 
capable to  do  this  in  the  lowest — according  to  the  overtures — is  the  perfection  of 
absurdity." 


Princeton   Theological  Semmary-Speei 


1    1012  01030  0459 


